| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Last infomask bit |
| Date: | 2007-01-09 22:44:05 |
| Message-ID: | 12135.1168382645@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Has anyone bothered to measure the overhead added by having to mask to
>> fetch or store the natts value? This is not a zero-cost improvement.
> Tom, how should this be tested? I assume some loop of the same query
> over and over again.
I'd be satisfied by a demonstration of no meaningful difference in
pgbench numbers.
It's *probably* not a problem, but you never know if you don't check...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2007-01-09 22:44:41 | Re: [HACKERS] Last infomask bit |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2007-01-09 22:43:39 | Re: Mark/Restore and avoiding RandomAccess sorts |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2007-01-09 22:44:41 | Re: [HACKERS] Last infomask bit |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-01-09 22:42:42 | Re: [HACKERS] Last infomask bit |