| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Petr Jelinek <petr(dot)jelinek(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: ALTER TABLE ADD COLUMN fast default |
| Date: | 2018-02-20 20:06:18 |
| Message-ID: | 20180220200618.4tsle6uburodi2x7@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2018-02-20 20:57:36 +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> The question is how should the schema for TPC-H look like. Because if
> you just do the usual test without any ALTER TABLE ADD COLUMN, then you
> really won't get any difference at all. The fast default stuff will be
> completely "inactive".
Well, there'll still be changed behaviour due to the changed sizes of
structures and new out of line function calls. The deforming code is
quite sensitive to such changes.
I think just verifying that there's no meaningful effect with/without
the patch is good enough. As soon as there's actual new columns that
take advantage of the new functionality I think some degradation is fair
game, you got some benefit for it.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2018-02-20 20:14:26 | Re: ALTER TABLE ADD COLUMN fast default |
| Previous Message | Brent Kerby | 2018-02-20 20:02:12 | Re: Option to ensure monotonic timestamps |