On Wednesday, January 09, 2013 5:45 PM Simon Riggs wrote: > On 9 January 2013 12:06, Amit Kapila <amit.kap...@huawei.com> wrote: > > On Wednesday, January 09, 2013 4:52 PM Simon Riggs wrote: > >> On 24 December 2012 16:57, Amit Kapila <amit.kap...@huawei.com> > wrote: > >> > >> > Performance: Average of 3 runs of pgbench in tps > >> > 9.3devel | with trailing null patch > >> > ----------+-------------------------- > >> > 578.9872 | 573.4980 > >> > >> On balance, it would seem optimizing for this special case would > >> affect everybody negatively; not much, but enough. Which means we > >> should rekect this patch. > >> > >> Do you have a reason why a different view might be taken? > > > > I have tried to dig why this gap is coming. I have observed that > there is > > very less change in normal path. > > I wanted to give it some more time to exactly find if something can > be done > > to avoid performance dip in normal execution. > > > > Right now I am busy in certain other work. But definitely in coming > week or > > so, I shall spare time to work on it again. > > Perhaps. Not every idea produces useful outcomes. Even after your > excellent research, it appears we haven't made this work yet. It's a > shame. Should we invest more time? It's considered rude to advise > others how to spend their time, but let me say this: we simply don't > have enough time to do everything and we need to be selective, > prioritising our time on to the things that look to give the best > benefit.
I think we can reject this patch. With Regards, Amit Kapila. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
