On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 1:11 PM, Josh Berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> wrote: > On 09/12/2014 10:00 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 1:00 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 9:01 PM, Josh Berkus <j...@agliodbs.com> wrote: >>>> So, I finally got time to test Tom's latest patch on this. >>>> >>>> TLDR: we want to go with Tom's latest patch and release beta3. >>>> >>>> Figures: >>>> >>>> So I tested HEAD against the latest lengths patch. Per Arthur Silva, I >>>> checked uncompressed times for JSONB against compressed times. This >>>> changed the picture considerably. >>> >>> Did you >> >> Blah. >> >> Did you test Heikki's patch from here? >> >> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/53ec8194.4020...@vmware.com >> >> Tom didn't like it, but I thought it was rather clever. > > Yes, I posted the results for that a couple weeks ago; Tom had posted a > cleaned-up version of that patch, but materially it made no difference > in sizes or extraction times compared with Tom's lengths-only patch. > Same for Arthur's tests. > > It's certainly possible that there is a test case for which Heikki's > approach is superior, but if so we haven't seen it. And since it's > approach is also more complicated, sticking with the simpler > lengths-only approach seems like the way to go.
Huh, OK. I'm slightly surprised, but that's why we benchmark these things. Thanks for following up on this. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
