From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: 9.5 release notes |
Date: | 2015-06-24 22:47:09 |
Message-ID: | CAM3SWZRxe4TfNTBopF7Bguj_BehZ5zxtjKNMv6b2Z6QT2y3LTA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 2:08 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> wrote:
> Really? The pre-check thing wasn't too complex for Magnus to have a
> couple of bullet points on it *specifically* in his high level NYC
> talk on Postgres 9.5 features [1]. I don't think it's hard to
> understand at all.
>
> Also, it's simply incorrect to describe abbreviation as: "Improve the
> speed of sorting character and numeric fields". Character fields
> presumably include character(n), and as I pointed out character(n)
> lacks abbreviation support.
Where are we on this? Bruce mentioned that he'd revisit this during pgCon.
Aside from the issue of whether or not the pre-check thing is
mentioned, and aside from the issue of correctly identifying which
types the abbreviation optimization applies to, I have another
concern: I cannot imagine why we'd fail to mention a totally
independent speed up of about 10% [1] for CREATE INDEX on integer
columns. This speed-up has nothing to do with abbreviation or anything
else mentioned in the 9.5 release notes currently; it's down to commit
5ea86e6e, which extended sortsupport to work with cases like CREATE
INDEX and CLUSTER.
[1] http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/545AC1D9.1040009@proxel.se
--
Peter Geoghegan
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2015-06-24 23:19:22 | Re: Should we back-patch SSL renegotiation fixes? |
Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2015-06-24 21:53:18 | Are we sufficiently clear that jsonb containment is nested? |