| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: 9.5 release notes |
| Date: | 2015-06-11 17:31:19 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYWVSG0jX3wyRZ8FB55hu3C6z-3+0m5dmkPCeZqx2VL8g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 12:14 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 12:13:26PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 11:32 AM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
>> > Improve hash creation and lookup performance (Tomas Vondra,
>> > Teodor Sigaev, Tom Lane, Robert Haas)
>>
>> I suggest haveing two separate items. One of those is about the Hash
>> executor node and the other is about our dynahash stuff. So they're
>> completely different code bases.
>
> OK, can you give me some text? Do users really care which part it is
> in?
One item should say something like:
Improve hash join performance.
The Teodor/Tom thing should say something like:
Improve the performance of various in-memory hash tables. In
particular, this can improve the performance of bitmap index scans.
I assume users would view those as separate things.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeff Janes | 2015-06-11 17:49:13 | Re: [HACKERS] 9.4.1 -> 9.4.2 problem: could not access status of transaction 1 |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2015-06-11 17:31:01 | Re: 9.5 release notes |