| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
|---|---|
| To: | Mark Dilger <mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Floris Van Nee <florisvannee(at)optiver(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Subject: | Re: Delaying/avoiding BTreeTupleGetNAtts() call within _bt_compare() |
| Date: | 2020-11-02 21:05:04 |
| Message-ID: | CAH2-WzkScZv5D_18C6fTBwRmON8mCv65kZ6BD1ReouPk-Q=Wyg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 12:35 PM Mark Dilger
<mark(dot)dilger(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> Reading this thread, I think the lack of a performance impact on laptop hardware was expected, but perhaps confirmation that it does not make things worse is useful?
>
> Since this patch doesn't seem to do any harm, I would mark it as "ready for committer", except that there doesn't yet seem to be enough evidence that it is a net win.
Thank you for testing my patch. Sorry for the delay in getting back to this.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2020-11-02 22:50:08 | Re: Since '2001-09-09 01:46:40'::timestamp microseconds are lost when extracting epoch |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2020-11-02 21:04:40 | Re: RE: Delaying/avoiding BTreeTupleGetNAtts() call within _bt_compare() |