> > Here's my post with a (very simple) performance test: > > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-02/msg00766.php > I think the 10M rows test is more in line with what we want (83s vs. 646).
Can someone else test the patch to see if what I found is still valid? I don't think it makes much sense if I'm the only one that says "this is faster" :) -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
