Re: Bug in new buffering GiST build code

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.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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