Re: gsoc, oprrest function for text search take 2
От | Heikki Linnakangas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: gsoc, oprrest function for text search take 2 |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 48A3FDF2.8050606@enterprisedb.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: gsoc, oprrest function for text search take 2 (Jan Urbański <j.urbanski@students.mimuw.edu.pl>) |
Ответы |
Re: gsoc, oprrest function for text search take 2
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Jan Urbański wrote: > Not good... Shall I try sorting pg_statistics arrays on text values > instead of frequencies? Yeah, I'd go with that. If you only do it for the new STATISTIC_KIND_MCV_ELEMENT statistics, you shouldn't need to change any other code. Hmm. There has been discussion on raising default_statistic_target, and one reason why we've been afraid to do so has been that it increases the cost of planning (there's some O(n^2) algorithms in there). Pre-sorting the STATISTIC_KIND_MCV array as well, and replacing the linear searches with binary searches would alleviate that, which would be nice. > BTW: I just noticed some text_to_cstring calls, they came from > elog(DEBUG1)s that I have in my code. But they couldn't have skewn the > results much, could they? Well, text_to_cstring was consuming 1.1% of the CPU time on its own, and presumably some of the AllocSetAlloc overhead is attributable to that as well. And perhaps some of the detoasting as well. Speaking of which, a lot of time seems to be spent on detoasting. I'd like to understand that a better. Where is the detoasting coming from? -- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: