| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
|---|---|
| To: | Victor Yegorov <vyegorov(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Moving _bt_readpage and _bt_checkkeys into a new .c file |
| Date: | 2025-12-07 22:30:54 |
| Message-ID: | CAH2-Wz=5-iS2oXTG-Zxu1Jwz0T8SpEYaJpa8M2iKoFRcvGPGAw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Dec 6, 2025 at 9:44 PM Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:
> Since this ignore_killed_tuples change is also very simple, and also
> seems like an easy win, I think that it can be committed as part of
> the second patch. Without it needing to wait for too much more
> performance validation.
My plan is to commit the entire patch series (with a modified second
patch that includes the ignore_killed_tuples change) in the next
couple of days.
As far as I can determine through performance validation that tested a
variety of different scan types (simple point lookups, range scans,
and a variety of different SAOP scan patterns), the patch series is an
unambiguous win. It appears to be slightly faster even in
unsympathetic cases, such as standard pgbench SELECT.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David G. Johnston | 2025-12-07 23:10:00 | Re: Fix incorrect comments in tuplesort.c |
| Previous Message | Mihail Nikalayeu | 2025-12-07 22:18:22 | Re: Issues with ON CONFLICT UPDATE and REINDEX CONCURRENTLY |