From: | Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: feature freeze and beta schedule |
Date: | 2015-05-02 00:27:29 |
Message-ID: | 87wq0rsugn.fsf@news-spur.riddles.org.uk |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>>>>> "Andres" == Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
Andres> * Abbreviated key support for Datum sorts
Andres> Unfortunately the discussion about potential performance
Andres> regression has been largely sidestepped by bickering over
Andres> minutiae.
Andres> => ?
There isn't a "potential performance regression" that is in any respect
different from the already-committed changes for non-Datum sorts.
Also as I've pointed out, it's not even clear that there is a regression
at all, since I've already shown that changes of several percent in
timings of sort operations can be caused by irrelevant noise factors.
To actually show a performance regression of less than 10% or so would
require, at a minimum, showing two different timings using the same data
and the same binary, though even that is subject to noise; to really
prove it you'd have to show a statistically significant difference
between sets of binaries with random padding sizes (see the graph I
posted on this point).
--
Andrew (irc:RhodiumToad)
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2015-05-02 00:33:00 | Re: feature freeze and beta schedule |
Previous Message | Petr Jelinek | 2015-05-02 00:22:04 | Re: feature freeze and beta schedule |