| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Claudio Freire <klaussfreire(at)gmail(dot)com>, Юрий Соколов <funny(dot)falcon(at)gmail(dot)com>, Sokolov Yura <funny(dot)falcon(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, PostgreSQL-Dev <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Small improvement to compactify_tuples |
| Date: | 2017-11-08 11:13:53 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmobyDksaVkoj=VTFovcw02mMBrjsbx7F9Nvm4tXTHU6HfQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 4:39 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> What I'm getting from the standard pgbench measurements, on both machines,
> is that this patch might be a couple percent slower than HEAD, but that is
> barely above the noise floor so I'm not too sure about it.
Hmm. It seems like slowing down single client performance by a couple
of percent is something that we really don't want to do.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Li Song | 2017-11-08 11:37:25 | Re: need info about extensibility in other databases |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2017-11-08 11:04:09 | Re: why not parallel seq scan for slow functions |