Re: Size of Path nodes

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: Size of Path nodes
Date: 2015-12-04 18:07:34
Message-ID: 11670.1449252454@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2015-12-04 12:50:09 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> which means Robert has already blown the planner's space consumption out
>> by close to a factor of 2, and I should stop worrying.

> FWIW, for me it's still <= 64 bytes:

No, it's not bare Path I'm worried about, it's IndexPath, which went
from 128 bytes in previous versions to 136 in HEAD. Likewise for
BitmapHeapPath, TidPath, ForeignPath, AppendPath, ResultPath,
MaterialPath, and possibly others.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2015-12-04 18:33:34 Re: Remaining 9.5 open items
Previous Message Andres Freund 2015-12-04 18:02:26 Re: Size of Path nodes