| From: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Junwang Zhao <zhjwpku(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Some ExecSeqScan optimizations |
| Date: | 2025-01-10 04:06:26 |
| Message-ID: | CAApHDvr780aPoziXgPgBzKZiK6M3HVR3Kn9842EcGoAVH0aiog@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 10 Jan 2025 at 02:46, Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 6, 2025 at 10:18 PM David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > I've attached my workings of what I was messing around with. It seems
> > to perform about the same as your version. I think maybe we'd need
> > some sort of execScan.h instead of where I've stuffed the functions
> > in.
>
> I've done that in the attached v2.
I think 0001 looks ok, aside from what the attached fixes. (at least
one is my mistake)
Did you test the performance of 0002? I didn't look at it hard enough
to understand what you've done. I can look if performance tests show
that it might be worthwhile considering.
David
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| minor_fixes.txt | text/plain | 1.6 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ashutosh Bapat | 2025-01-10 04:37:40 | Re: Small refactoring around vacuum_open_relation |
| Previous Message | Abhishek Chanda | 2025-01-10 03:59:21 | Re: Adding support for SSLKEYLOGFILE in the frontend |