| From: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Size of Path nodes |
| Date: | 2015-12-04 22:44:00 |
| Message-ID: | 56621730.7040809@BlueTreble.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 12/4/15 11:50 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> which means Robert has already blown the planner's space consumption out
> by close to a factor of 2, and I should stop worrying. Or else he should
> start worrying. Do we really need this field? Did anyone pay any
> attention to what happened to planner space consumption and performance
> when the parallel-scan patch went in? Or am I just too conditioned by
> working with last-century hardware, and I should stop caring about how
> large these nodes are?
I suspect Cachegrind[1] would answer a lot of these questions (though
I've never actually used it). I can't get postgres to run under valgrind
on my laptop, but maybe someone that's been successful at valgrind can
try cachegrind (It's just another mode of valgrind).
[1] http://valgrind.org/docs/manual/cg-manual.html
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX
Experts in Analytics, Data Architecture and PostgreSQL
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2015-12-04 23:14:26 | Re: Size of Path nodes |
| Previous Message | Bill Moran | 2015-12-04 22:16:38 | Re: remapped localhost causes connections to localhost to fail using Postgres |