| From: | Gurjeet Singh <gurjeet(at)singh(dot)im> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, PGSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Shave a few instructions from child-process startup sequence |
| Date: | 2013-12-01 17:07:21 |
| Message-ID: | CABwTF4UDp_QyRmBtWkhSwxP0PjDj6SLBUPBt-7Gb3v6FkrigvA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 9:12 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> This is a performance patch, so it should come with benchmark results
> demonstrating that it accomplishes its intended purpose. I don't see
> any.
>
Yes, this is a performance patch, but as the subject says, it saves a few
instructions. I don't know how to write a test case that can measure
savings of skipping a few instructions in a startup sequence that
potentially takes thousands, or even millions, of instructions.
Best regards,
--
Gurjeet Singh http://gurjeet.singh.im/
EDB Corp. www.EnterpriseDB.com <http://www.enterprisedb.com>
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Noah Misch | 2013-12-01 17:49:40 | Re: Incomplete freezing when truncating a relation during vacuum |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2013-12-01 14:58:45 | Re: name.c |