| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh Kupershmidt <schmiddy(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)gmail(dot)com>, Leonardo Francalanci <m_lists(at)yahoo(dot)it>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: I: About "Our CLUSTER implementation is pessimal" patch |
| Date: | 2010-09-29 04:27:50 |
| Message-ID: | 1285733907-sup-8868@alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Excerpts from Josh Kupershmidt's message of mar sep 28 23:53:33 -0400 2010:
> I started looking at the performance impact of this patch based on
> Leonardo's SQL file. On the 2 million row table, I see a consistent
> ~10% advantage for the sequential scan clusters. I'm going to try to
> run the bigger tests a few times and post results from there when I
> get a chance.
10% is nothing. I was expecting this patch would give an order of
magnitude of improvement or somethine like that in the worst cases of
the current code (highly unsorted input)
--
Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Itagaki Takahiro | 2010-09-29 05:12:59 | Re: I: About "Our CLUSTER implementation is pessimal" patch |
| Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2010-09-29 04:27:33 | Re: Proposal: plpgsql - "for in array" statement |