| From: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Melanie Plageman <melanieplageman(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: First draft of PG 17 release notes |
| Date: | 2024-05-23 01:34:10 |
| Message-ID: | CAApHDvqyoYMXP-DiiGR_RR+_-YSFDS0ukGqGW56rkABPprPiyg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, 23 May 2024 at 10:04, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> You might have seen in this thread, I do record commits that speed up
> workloads that are user-visible, or specifically make new workloads
> possible. I assume that covers the items above, though I have to
> determine this from the commit message.
It sometimes is hard to write something specific in the commit message
about the actual performance increase.
For example, if a commit removes an O(N log2 N) algorithm and replaces
it with an O(1), you can't say there's an X% increase in performance
as the performance increase depends on the value of N.
Jelte did call me out for not mentioning enough detail about the
performance in c4ab7da60, but if I claimed any % of an increase, it
would have been specific to some workload.
What is the best way to communicate this stuff so it's easily
identifiable when you parse the commit messages?
David
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andy Fan | 2024-05-23 01:46:15 | Re: Shared detoast Datum proposal |
| Previous Message | David Rowley | 2024-05-23 01:23:42 | Speed up JSON escape processing with SIMD plus other optimisations |