> > Here's my post with a (very simple) performance test:
> > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-02/msg00766.php
> I think the 10M rows test is more in line with what we want (83s vs. 646).
Can someone else test the patch to see if what I found is still valid?
I don't think it makes much sense if I'm the only one that says
"this is faster" :)
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Magnus Hagander||Date: 2010-09-29 17:01:29|
|Subject: Re: Stalled post to pgsql-committers|
|Previous:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2010-09-29 15:36:48|
|Subject: Re: security hook on table creation|