Re: 9.5 release notes

From: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: 9.5 release notes
Date: 2015-06-24 22:47:09
Message-ID: CAM3SWZRxe4TfNTBopF7Bguj_BehZ5zxtjKNMv6b2Z6QT2y3LTA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sun, Jun 14, 2015 at 2:08 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> wrote:
> Really? The pre-check thing wasn't too complex for Magnus to have a
> couple of bullet points on it *specifically* in his high level NYC
> talk on Postgres 9.5 features [1]. I don't think it's hard to
> understand at all.
>
> Also, it's simply incorrect to describe abbreviation as: "Improve the
> speed of sorting character and numeric fields". Character fields
> presumably include character(n), and as I pointed out character(n)
> lacks abbreviation support.

Where are we on this? Bruce mentioned that he'd revisit this during pgCon.

Aside from the issue of whether or not the pre-check thing is
mentioned, and aside from the issue of correctly identifying which
types the abbreviation optimization applies to, I have another
concern: I cannot imagine why we'd fail to mention a totally
independent speed up of about 10% [1] for CREATE INDEX on integer
columns. This speed-up has nothing to do with abbreviation or anything
else mentioned in the 9.5 release notes currently; it's down to commit
5ea86e6e, which extended sortsupport to work with cases like CREATE
INDEX and CLUSTER.

[1] http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/545AC1D9.1040009@proxel.se
--
Peter Geoghegan

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2015-06-24 23:19:22 Re: Should we back-patch SSL renegotiation fixes?
Previous Message Peter Geoghegan 2015-06-24 21:53:18 Are we sufficiently clear that jsonb containment is nested?