From: | John Naylor <john(dot)naylor(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: A qsort template |
Date: | 2021-07-02 02:32:31 |
Message-ID: | CAFBsxsFwLYTy0LGOuORvSevxUi0ZcChzM4B-+gnc6b2FTL+OAQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jul 1, 2021 at 6:10 PM Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> One thing I'm wondering about is whether it's worth having stuff to
> support future experimentation like ST_SORT_SMALL_THRESHOLD and
> ST_COMPARE_RET_TYPE in the tree, or whether we should pare it back to
> the minimal changes that definitely produce results. I think I'd like
> to keep those changes: even if it may be some time, possibly an
> infinite amount, before we figure out how to tune the thresholds
> profitably, giving them names instead of using magic numbers seems
> like progress.
I suspect if we experiment on two extremes of type "heaviness" (accessing
and comparing trivial or not), such as uint32 and tuplesort, we'll have a
pretty good idea what the parameters should be, if anything different. I'll
do some testing along those lines.
(BTW, I just realized I lied and sent a .patch file after all, oops)
--
John Naylor
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | John Naylor | 2021-07-02 02:33:46 | Re: cutting down the TODO list thread |
Previous Message | Thomas Munro | 2021-07-02 02:18:55 | Re: cutting down the TODO list thread |