From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Jim Nasby <jim(at)nasby(dot)net>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Ants Aasma <ants(at)cybertec(dot)at>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Patch: add timing of buffer I/O requests |
Date: | 2012-04-14 12:29:55 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmobnHw7PjLLK2dd6pphhcPL7cjDOQJe+d0eLnnuNQ=P1nA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 3:27 AM, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On 04/13/2012 06:22 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>> But (a) I *don't* want to seriously break things, and don't see a need
>> to; (b) interval is expensive and has got its own problems, notably an
>> internal limitation to usec resolution that we would not be able to get
>> rid of easily.
>
> A straight float seems pretty future proof compared to a usec resolution
> interval. Jim was commenting in the same direction I already did, that ns
> resolution is not impossible to see coming.
>
> I also expect to compute plenty of derived statistics from these numbers.
> Interval math is good enough that I'm sure such things could be done, but
> it seems odd to start with those units. I appreciate that the interval type
> has a nice purist feel to it. My pragmatic side says we're going to pay
> overhead to create in that type, only to find people end up converting it
> right back to other types for easier math tricks.
I'm still rooting for numeric. As somebody said upthread, performance
ain't critical here; and that lets us whack around the internal
representation however we like without worrying about it.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Greg Stark | 2012-04-14 12:32:04 | Re: Memory usage during sorting |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2012-04-14 12:23:40 | Re: BUG #6572: The example of SPI_execute is bogus |