Re: Abbreviated keys for Numeric
От | Andrew Gierth |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Abbreviated keys for Numeric |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 87a8z39zk8.fsf@news-spur.riddles.org.uk обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Abbreviated keys for Numeric (Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Abbreviated keys for Numeric
Re: Abbreviated keys for Numeric Re: Abbreviated keys for Numeric |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
>>>>> "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 substantiveexcept removingPeter> 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? -- Andrew (irc:RhodiumToad)
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: