Re: Size of Path nodes

On 12/4/15 11:50 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> which means Robert has already blown the planner's space consumption out
> by close to a factor of 2, and I should stop worrying.  Or else he should
> start worrying.  Do we really need this field?  Did anyone pay any
> attention to what happened to planner space consumption and performance
> when the parallel-scan patch went in?  Or am I just too conditioned by
> working with last-century hardware, and I should stop caring about how
> large these nodes are?

I suspect Cachegrind[1] would answer a lot of these questions (though 
I've never actually used it). I can't get postgres to run under valgrind 
on my laptop, but maybe someone that's been successful at valgrind can 
try cachegrind (It's just another mode of valgrind).

[1] http://valgrind.org/docs/manual/cg-manual.html
-- 
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX
Experts in Analytics, Data Architecture and PostgreSQL
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com