| From: | Ryan Murphy <ryanfmurphy(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Does having a NULL column automatically exclude the table from the tupleDesc cache? |
| Date: | 2017-02-19 16:23:48 |
| Message-ID: | CAHeEsBeRqnNky99WpwQ1-gSYTTQUj17do8of+DL4LxTEh3+RUw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > You'll probably want to do those at a C level, bypassing the executor. I
> > would guess that executor overhead will completely swamp the effect of
> the
> > cache in most cases.
>
> That seems like it's kind of missing the point. If the tupleDesc
> cache saves so little that it's irrelevant when tested through the
> executor, it's not a very useful cache. I bet that's not the case,
> though.
>
Thank you both for your insight. I'll probably hold off on the benchmarks
for right now. I didn't have a production reason to worry about the cache,
just getting more familiar with the codebase. Thanks again!
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dilip Kumar | 2017-02-19 16:29:12 | Re: Parallel bitmap heap scan |
| Previous Message | Erik Rijkers | 2017-02-19 16:23:29 | Re: Logical replication existing data copy - comments origin.c |