From: | 'Bruce Momjian' <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila(at)huawei(dot)com>, 'PostgreSQL-development' <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: 9.3 Beta1 status report |
Date: | 2013-05-16 22:52:03 |
Message-ID: | 20130516225203.GD16506@momjian.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 06:49:33PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> "'Bruce Momjian'" <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> > On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 08:38:59PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> >> Reduce query processing overhead by avoiding insertion of useless plan nodes
> >> OR
> >> Improve performance of certain kind of queries by avoiding extra processing
> >> of doing projection
> >>
> >> This applies to queries doing identity projection ("SELECT * FROM ...") for
> >> partitioned tables.
>
> > Uh, that's pretty complex for our release notes, and hard to understand
> > for most users. All they will know is that PG is faster --- we don't
> > document every speedup.
>
> No, but this is user-visible if they look at EXPLAIN output, and people
> might wonder why they were getting different results.
>
> Possibly text like
>
> Omit unnecessary Result and Limit nodes from query plans.
Yes, that would be user-visible, though we rarely add details like that.
What queries are faster, that users would understand?
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2013-05-16 23:03:15 | Re: PLJava for Postgres 9.2. |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2013-05-16 22:49:33 | Re: 9.3 Beta1 status report |