| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Luke Lonergan <LLonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com> |
| Cc: | mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Dann Corbit <DCorbit(at)connx(dot)com>, "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com>, Jie Zhang <jzhang(at)greenplum(dot)com>, Mark Kirkwood <markir(at)paradise(dot)net(dot)nz>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Gavin Sherry <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: On-disk bitmap index patch |
| Date: | 2006-07-29 13:31:31 |
| Message-ID: | 200607291331.k6TDVV415624@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Luke Lonergan wrote:
> Mark,
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc [mailto:mark(at)mark(dot)mielke(dot)cc]
> > Sent: Friday, July 28, 2006 9:26 PM
> >
> > But irrefutable? Irrefutable is not true. :-)
>
> How about unrefuted. The evidence has not been refuted, and not
> directly discussed or discounted.
>
> BTREE can not be optimized to produce the results we've presented, the
> discussion about char(n) datatypes was irrelevant as we had shown
> results for INT, numeric and char/varchar and they were all dramatically
> better than BTREE.
>
> I am hopeful this discussion takes a rapid turn toward the quantitative
> assessment of the results.
Right. People need a patch to test on their workloads, and analysis can
be done after feature freeze.
--
Bruce Momjian bruce(at)momjian(dot)us
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2006-07-29 14:21:05 | Re: [HACKERS] Possible explanation for Win32 stats regression |
| Previous Message | korryd@enterprisedb.com | 2006-07-29 12:18:33 | Re: [HACKERS] Possible explanation for Win32 stats regression test |