Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com> writes:
> On 21.09.2011 17:20, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
>> Even still, I
>> think that the 12.5% figure is pretty pessimistic - I've already sped
>> up the dell store query by almost that much, and that's with a patch
>> that was, due to circumstances, cobbled together.
> I'm not against making things faster, it's just that I haven't seen
> solid evidence yet that this will help. Just provide a best-case test
> case for this that shows a huge improvement, and I'll shut up. If the
> improvement is only modest, then let's discuss how big it is and whether
> it's worth the code ugliness this causes.
The other question that I'm going to be asking is whether it's not
possible to get most of the same improvement with a much smaller code
footprint. I continue to suspect that getting rid of the SQL function
impedance-match layer (myFunctionCall2Coll etc) would provide most of
whatever gain is to be had here, without nearly as large a cost in code
size and maintainability, and with the extra benefit that the speedup
would also be available to non-core datatypes.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
