| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: gettimeofday is at the end of its usefulness? |
| Date: | 2016-07-07 18:48:23 |
| Message-ID: | 20160707184823.fvgp2tkrpxvjvddz@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2016-07-07 14:43:31 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 4:27 PM, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com> wrote:
> > Semi-related: someone (Robert I think) recently mentioned investigating
> > "vectorized" executor nodes, where multiple tuples would be processed in one
> > shot. If we had that presumably the explain penalty would be a moot point.
>
> Yeah, both Andres and I are interested in that, and I think he's
> actively working on it. It would be quite neat if this had the effect
> of reducing EXPLAIN ANALYZE's overhead to something trivial.
I am, and it does reduce the overhead. Depends on the type of plan
though. Index nestloops e.g. don't benefit on the inner side.
Andres
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pete Stevenson | 2016-07-07 19:50:37 | Re: MVCC overheads |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2016-07-07 18:43:31 | Re: gettimeofday is at the end of its usefulness? |