From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Clock sweep not caching enough B-Tree leaf pages? |
Date: | 2014-04-16 17:42:16 |
Message-ID: | CAM3SWZSg_KwX-ysQa1Zm8hyYHeSzC+QVnaVbm5xhDtOqKQyrVQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 4:01 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> Aren't you interested in the significance of the patch, and the test case?
>
> Not particularly in the specifics to be honest. The tradeoffs of the
> techniques you used in there seem prohibitive to me. It's easy to make
> individual cases faster by sacrificing others.
You're the one poring over the specifics of what I've done, to my
consternation. I am not prepared to defend the patch at that level, as
I've made abundantly clear. I've called it a sketch, a proof of
concept half a dozen times already. I don't understand your difficulty
with that. I also don't understand how you can be so dismissive of the
benchmark, given the numbers involved. You're being unreasonable.
If I didn't write this patch, and I talked to people about this issue
at pgCon, I'm not sure that anyone would be convinced that it was a
problem, or at least that it was this much of a problem.
--
Peter Geoghegan
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2014-04-16 17:49:20 | Re: [GENERAL] pg_upgrade & tablespaces |
Previous Message | Claudio Freire | 2014-04-16 17:26:45 | Re: Clock sweep not caching enough B-Tree leaf pages? |