| From: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] Last infomask bit |
| Date: | 2007-01-10 09:31:49 |
| Message-ID: | 45A4B285.7090004@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Has anyone bothered to measure the overhead added by having to mask to
>>> fetch or store the natts value? This is not a zero-cost improvement.
I haven't tested it. Agreed, it does add an AND operation to places
where t_natts is accessed.
>> Tom, how should this be tested? I assume some loop of the same query
>> over and over again.
>
> I'd be satisfied by a demonstration of no meaningful difference in
> pgbench numbers.
>
> It's *probably* not a problem, but you never know if you don't check...
I doubt there's any measurable difference, but I can do a pgbench run to
make sure.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dave Page | 2007-01-10 10:08:30 | Operator family docs |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2007-01-10 09:28:15 | Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] Last infomask bit |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | TANIDA Yutaka | 2007-01-10 09:52:16 | Re: xlog lockup patch (was: BUG #2712: could not fsync |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2007-01-10 09:28:15 | Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] Last infomask bit |