On 15 November 2012 22:08, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: >> On 15 November 2012 19:42, Jeff Davis <pg...@j-davis.com> wrote: >>> many of the hint bits aren't terribly important > >> The truth is that nobody knows because there is no way of knowing. > > We had a discussion awhile back in which the idea of *no* hint bits > was advocated, and someone (I think Robert) did some preliminary > tests that pretty much shot it down. However, I don't recall > anyone suggesting before that the four existing bits might not all > be equally worthwhile. It's worth looking into.
Itsn't that what I said? In case of doubt, Yes, its a great idea and worth looking into. The question is *how* we look into it. > The hard part is > probably agreeing on the test case or cases to measure behavior for. I think thats impossible. There are just too many possible cases. Measuring top-level performance without measuring low level stats just means we can't tell the difference between a test that didn't exercise the code and a test where there was no difference. We need detailed stats that allow many people to make their own tests and to report on what they find. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
