From: | Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Bug in new buffering GiST build code |
Date: | 2012-06-04 22:00:07 |
Message-ID: | CAPpHfdu4gmz9rRUaOzE5JDemHL6jr3pKgzf=qgSH9c2V0WTSng@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 1:46 AM, Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com>wrote:
> On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 12:33 AM, Heikki Linnakangas <
> heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>
>> Alexander, do you still have the test environments and data lying around
>> that you used for GiST buffering testing last summer? Could you rerun some
>> of those tests with this patch?
>>
>
> I think I can restore test environment and data. Will rerun tests soon.
>
I rerun some of tests. There are index build times in seconds for old way
of parent refind and new way of it.
old new
usnoa2 2385 2452
usnoa2_shuffled 8131 8055
uniform 8327 8359
I thinks difference can be described by round error.
Indexes seem to be exactly same. It's predictable because changing
algorithm of parent refind shouldn't change the result.
------
With best regards,
Alexander Korotkov.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2012-06-04 23:01:37 | Re: No, pg_size_pretty(numeric) was not such a hot idea |
Previous Message | Jim Nasby | 2012-06-04 20:36:05 | Re: No, pg_size_pretty(numeric) was not such a hot idea |