From: | Andrea Suisani <sickpig(at)opinioni(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: limiting hint bit I/O |
Date: | 2011-01-19 08:20:59 |
Message-ID: | 4D369EEB.3050806@opinioni.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 01/19/2011 09:03 AM, Andrea Suisani wrote:
> On 01/18/2011 06:44 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 9:24 AM, Merlin Moncure<mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> a few weeks back I hacked an experimental patch that removed the hint
>>> bit action completely. the results were very premature and/or
>>> incorrect, but my initial findings suggested that hint bits might not
>>> be worth the cost from performance standpoint. i'd like to see some
>>> more investigation in this direction before going with a complex
>>> application mechanism (although that would be beneficial vs the status
>>> quo).
>>
>> I think it's not very responsible to allege that hint bits aren't
>> providing a benefit without providing the patch that you used and the
>> tests that you ran.
>
> maybe I'm wrong but it seems it did post an experimental patch and also
^^
he
> a tests used, see:
^^
the
sorry for the typos (not enough caffeine I suppose :)
Andrea
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Martijn van Oosterhout | 2011-01-19 08:22:41 | Re: texteq/byteaeq: avoid detoast [REVIEW] |
Previous Message | Andrea Suisani | 2011-01-19 08:03:25 | Re: limiting hint bit I/O |