Re: B-Tree support function number 3 (strxfrm() optimization)
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: B-Tree support function number 3 (strxfrm() optimization) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+TgmoZzRxMu0h_dzDVRbinKiwp3NBMfDTKM1pya7-WVJLoLig@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: B-Tree support function number 3 (strxfrm() optimization) (Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: B-Tree support function number 3 (strxfrm() optimization)
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 3:10 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 10:10 AM, Heikki Linnakangas > <hlinnakangas@vmware.com> wrote: >> Right. But 1) is the baseline we need to evaluate 2) against. > > I don't agree with that. Surely we're concerned with not regressing > cases that people actually care about, which in practical terms means > the changes of a single release. No, we're concerned about ending up with the best possible performance. That could mean applying the fmgr-elision but not the other part. Whether the other part is beneficial is based on how it compares to the performance post-fmgr-elision. As an oversimplified example, suppose someone were to propose two patches, one that makes PostgreSQL ten times as fast and the other of which slows it down by a factor of five. If someone merges those two things into a single combined patch, we would surely be foolish to apply the whole thing. The right thing would be to separate them out and apply only the first one. Every change has to stand on its own two feet. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: