From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: B-Tree support function number 3 (strxfrm() optimization) |
Date: | 2014-09-12 19:08:58 |
Message-ID: | CAM3SWZQsZSG9=gO7EgW5=AFdPH-joV-G6yzLiBB76=x44i4gwA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 12:02 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I think I've said a few times now that I really want to get this
> additional data before forming an opinion. As a certain Mr. Doyle
> writes, "It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data.
> Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of
> theories to suit facts." I can't say it any better than that.
Well, in the abbreviated key case we might know that with probability
0.99999 that the "memcmp() == 0" thing will work out. In the
non-abbreviated tie-breaker case, we'll definitely know nothing. That
seems like a pretty fundamental distinction, so I don't think it's
premature to ask you to consider those two questions individually.
Still, maybe it's easier to justify both cases in the same way, if we
can.
--
Peter Geoghegan
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum | 2014-09-12 19:13:35 | Re: documentation update for doc/src/sgml/func.sgml |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2014-09-12 19:02:27 | Re: B-Tree support function number 3 (strxfrm() optimization) |