Re: Performance optimization of btree binary search

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
Subject: Re: Performance optimization of btree binary search
Date: 2013-12-05 01:27:43
Message-ID: 30761.1386206863@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> On Wed, 2013-12-04 at 19:45 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 6:56 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> Yeah, that's another thing we could simplify if we fixed this problem
>>> at the source. I think these decisions date from a time when we still
>>> cared about the speed of fmgr_oldstyle.

>> Sure, let's whack that thing with a crowbar.

> Or just remove it. Who still needs it?

Lazy people? I'm not in a hurry to drop it; it's not costing us much to
just sit there, other than in this connection which we see how to fix.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Geoghegan 2013-12-05 01:28:57 Re: Performance optimization of btree binary search
Previous Message Tom Lane 2013-12-05 01:25:53 Re: Proposal: variant of regclass