| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: POC: converting Lists into arrays |
| Date: | 2019-02-26 05:34:04 |
| Message-ID: | 18476.1551159244@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> Using the attached patch (as text file so as not to upset the CFbot),
> which basically just measures and logs the time taken to run
> pg_plan_query. ...
> Surprisingly it took 1.13% longer. I did these tests on an AWS
> md5.large instance.
Interesting. Seems to suggest that maybe the cases I discounted
as being infrequent aren't so infrequent? Another possibility
is that the new coding adds more cycles to foreach() loops than
I'd hoped for.
Anyway, it's just a POC; the main point at this stage is to be
able to make such comparisons at all. If it turns out that we
*can't* make this into a win, then all that bellyaching about
how inefficient Lists are was misinformed ...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2019-02-26 05:37:53 | Re: Segfault when restoring -Fd dump on current HEAD |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2019-02-26 05:30:59 | Re: [HACKERS] generated columns |