| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Parallel bitmap heap scan |
| Date: | 2016-10-17 20:12:17 |
| Message-ID: | CA+Tgmobke3AS+-ahTVg_FisqzhZ+YP8OJhpgYjj+jw2cn2NYXw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 1:23 AM, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> There is major chance in tidbitmap.c file after efficient hash table
> commit [1] and my patch need to be rebased.
>
> Only parallel-bitmap-heap-scan need to be rebased, all other patch can
> be applied on head as is.
> Rebased version (v2) of parallel-bitmap-heap-scan is attached.
But what's the impact on performance? Presumably parallel bitmap heap
scan was already slower than the non-parallel version, and that commit
presumably widens the gap. Seems like something to worry about...
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2016-10-17 20:15:58 | Re: Parallel bitmap heap scan |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-10-17 20:11:37 | Re: Add PGDLLEXPORT to PG_FUNCTION_INFO_V1 |