| From: | Павлухин Иван <vololo100(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Column lookup in a row performance |
| Date: | 2019-04-02 05:48:31 |
| Message-ID: | CAOykqKep-YVTZw8ktkrNnfmnwozC6DwRCfqUPVKQMQdKge=ryA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom,
Thank you.
> (1) Backwards compatibility, and (2) it's not clear that a different
> layout would be a win for all cases.
I am curious regarding (2), for my understanding it is good to find
out at least one case when layout with lengths/offsets in a header
will be crucially worse. I will be happy if someone can elaborate.
сб, 30 мар. 2019 г. в 17:26, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
>
> =?UTF-8?B?0J/QsNCy0LvRg9GF0LjQvSDQmNCy0LDQvQ==?= <vololo100(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > Does anyone know why the format is still the same?
>
> (1) Backwards compatibility, and (2) it's not clear that a different
> layout would be a win for all cases.
>
> regards, tom lane
--
Best regards,
Ivan Pavlukhin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Langote | 2019-04-02 05:50:59 | Re: speeding up planning with partitions |
| Previous Message | Julien Rouhaud | 2019-04-02 05:43:12 | Re: Checksum errors in pg_stat_database |