From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Jay Levitt <jay(dot)levitt(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jim Decibel! Nasby <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org>, Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Progress on fast path sorting, btree index creation time |
Date: | 2012-02-08 03:10:38 |
Message-ID: | 20120208031038.GA7904@momjian.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Feb 07, 2012 at 09:38:39PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> So we need some principled way of deciding how much inlining is
> reasonable, because I am 100% certain this is not going to be the last
> time someone discovers that a massive exercise in inlining can yield a
> nifty performance benefit in some case or another: index builds and
> COPY have already been mentioned on this thread, and I expect that
> people will find other cases as well. I'm not really sure what the
> "budget" is - i.e. how much binary bloat we can afford to add - or how
> many cases there are that can benefit, but the first isn't infinite
> and the second is more than the first.
>
> Having said all that, I am inclined to commit at least some portion of
> this, but I wanted to knock off a few other patches that have been
> lingering for a while first.
One approach would be to only do a few types now, e.g. integers and
strings, and perhaps leave the others for later.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Joachim Wieland | 2012-02-08 03:21:04 | Re: patch for parallel pg_dump |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2012-02-08 02:50:21 | Re: psql case preserving completion |