| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Do we need so many hint bits? |
| Date: | 2012-11-16 03:08:00 |
| Message-ID: | 2488.1353035280@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 15 November 2012 19:42, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> wrote:
>> many of the hint bits aren't terribly important
> The truth is that nobody knows because there is no way of knowing.
We had a discussion awhile back in which the idea of *no* hint bits
was advocated, and someone (I think Robert) did some preliminary
tests that pretty much shot it down. However, I don't recall
anyone suggesting before that the four existing bits might not all
be equally worthwhile. It's worth looking into. The hard part is
probably agreeing on the test case or cases to measure behavior for.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2012-11-16 03:21:10 | Re: Do we need so many hint bits? |
| Previous Message | Jeff Janes | 2012-11-16 03:05:00 | Re: Further pg_upgrade analysis for many tables |