From: | Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Minor optimizations in lazy_scan_heap |
Date: | 2012-12-08 07:11:06 |
Message-ID: | CABOikdN2i2HVGB2V-S-pgmMysbgBtidcxXxi4eVoWhFR0Tyjnw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 11:02 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 1:23 AM, Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com>
> >
> > Comments ? Anyone thinks any/all of above is useful ?
>
> I doubt that any of these things make enough difference to be worth
> bothering with,
You're right. These are not big ticket optimisations, still I felt they are
worth doing because tiny bits add up over a time and also because the code
may become little simpler. The benchmarks don't show anything interesting
though. The time taken to scan 100K+ bits is sub-second. So even when I
tried with the attached patch, the numbers did not show any noticeable
difference. It might be worth trying with a table with 1M or 10M data
blocks, but I don't have such a hardware to test.
The patch itself can be improved further, especially we can possibly
optimise the loop and test 32-bits at a time, instead of 8 I am doing
currently. Not sure its worth though.
Thanks,
Pavan
--
Pavan Deolasee
http://www.linkedin.com/in/pavandeolasee
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
vm_test_range-v2.patch | application/octet-stream | 7.4 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2012-12-08 10:16:47 | Re: Commits 8de72b and 5457a1 (COPY FREEZE) |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-12-08 04:14:47 | Re: Review: Patch to compute Max LSN of Data Pages |