Re: Abbreviated keys for Numeric
От | ktm@rice.edu |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Abbreviated keys for Numeric |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20150324130020.GA28249@aart.rice.edu обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Abbreviated keys for Numeric (Andrew Gierth <andrew@tao11.riddles.org.uk>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 09:41:40PM +0000, Andrew Gierth wrote: > >>>>> "Peter" == Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com> writes: > > Peter> As I said, I don't really consider that my patch is a rewrite, > Peter> especially V4, which changes nothing substantive except removing > Peter> 32-bit support. > > Well, that's a hell of an "except". > > Here's my main arguments for why 32bit support should be kept: > > 1. It exists and works well (and yes, I have tested it). > > 2. This optimization is a huge win even on very small data sets. On > sorts of as few as 100 items it gives detectable (on the order of +50%) > improvements. On 1000 items the speedup can easily be 3 times. So it's > not just people with big data who want this; even small databases will > benefit. > > 3. Keeping the 32bit support (and desupporting DEC_DIGITS != 4) makes it > unnecessary to have #ifdefs that disable the numeric abbreviation > entirely. (You don't even need those for comparative performance > testing; easier to do that by tweaking the catalogs.) > > As against that, you have the fact that it's ~70 lines of code in one > self-contained function which is 32bit-specific. > > So what do other people think? > +1 for including 32-bit support as well. This is a tremendous performance increase and users of older systems will benefit, and should benefit. Regards, Ken
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: