| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Gregory Smith <gregsmithpgsql(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Last Commitfest patches waiting review |
| Date: | 2014-10-10 01:35:33 |
| Message-ID: | CAM3SWZRPReSvEMrwKvLsEWDif170ezKdnq7wGmWgFd7LrZuN6Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> wrote:
>> Can you write
>> a separate patch to use SortSupport for B-tree index builds, please?
>> Eliminating the FunctionCallInfoData overhead should shave off some some
>> cycles from every index build.
>
> I'll look into it. Hopefully an effort to actually implement it will
> show that I was right, and there isn't much to it.
I was able to get this working pretty quickly. All regression tests
pass. I'm not going to post a patch just yet, because I still need to
make the cluster case work, and I'll probably want to refactor my
approach to performing catalog lookups a bit, but the important point
is that my original suspicion that this isn't very difficult or
invasive has been confirmed.
I should have something to post before too long.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Connor Wolf | 2014-10-10 03:09:07 | Re: Understanding and implementing a GiST Index |
| Previous Message | Gavin Flower | 2014-10-09 23:59:54 | Re: UPSERT wiki page, and SQL MERGE syntax |