From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
Cc: | Hans-Jürgen Schönig <postgres(at)cybertec(dot)at>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Boszormenyi Zoltan <zb(at)cybertec(dot)at>, pgsql-hackers Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: plan time of MASSIVE partitioning ... |
Date: | 2010-09-08 15:39:35 |
Message-ID: | 1283960300-sup-4372@alvh.no-ip.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Excerpts from Stephen Frost's message of mié sep 08 11:26:55 -0400 2010:
> * Hans-Jürgen Schönig (postgres(at)cybertec(dot)at) wrote:
> > but, it seems the problem we are looking is not sufficiently fixed yet.
> > in our case we shaved off some 18% of planning time or so - looking at the other top 2 functions i got the feeling that more can be done to reduce this. i guess we have to attack this as well.
>
> An 18% increase is certainly nice, provided it doesn't slow down or
> break other things.. I'm looking through the patch now actually and
> I'm not really happy with the naming, comments, or some of the code
> flow, but I think the concept looks reasonable.
I don't understand the layering between pg_tree and rbtree. Why does it
exist at all? At first I thought this was another implementation of
rbtrees, but then I noticed it sits on top of it. Is this really
necessary?
--
Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-09-08 15:42:14 | Re: plan time of MASSIVE partitioning ... |
Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2010-09-08 15:37:30 | Re: plan time of MASSIVE partitioning ... |