On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 11:51 AM, Tomas Vondra <tomas.von...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > > On 12/21/2015 07:41 PM, Jeff Janes wrote: >> >> On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 3:19 PM, Tomas Vondra >> <tomas.von...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > > ... > >>> So both patches seem to do the trick, but (2) is faster. Not sure >>> if this is expected. (BTW all the results are without asserts >>> enabled). >> >> >> Do you know what the size of the pending list was at the end of each >> test? >> >> I think last one may be faster because it left a large mess behind >> that someone needs to clean up later. > > > No. How do I measure it?
pageinspect's gin_metapage_info, or pgstattuple's pgstatginindex > >> >> Also, do you have the final size of the indexes in each case? > > > No, I haven't realized the patches do affect that, so I haven't measured it. There shouldn't be a difference between the two approaches (although I guess there could be if one left a larger pending list than the other, as pending lists is very space inefficient), but since you included 9.5 in your test I thought it would be interesting to see how either patched version under 9.6 compared to 9.5. Cheers, Jeff -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
