On Mon, 2006-06-26 at 14:36 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Mon, 2006-06-26 at 16:48 +0200, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote: > >> Anyway, I think it's a good idea. Most places in the backend after the > >> SeqScan/IndexScan node really don't care about most of the header > >> fields and being able to drop them would be nice. > > > I understood Tom meant to do this only for HashAgg and Tuplestore. Tom, > > is it possible to extend this further across the executor as Martijn > > suggests? That would be useful, even if it is slightly harder to measure > > the benefit than it is with the can-spill-to-disk cases. > > There isn't any benefit
OK, see that... > I thought for awhile about MemoryTuple (as contrasted to HeapTuple) but > that seems too generic. Any other thoughts? I like MemoryTuple but since we only use it when we go to disk... ExecutorTuple, MinimalTuple, DataOnlyTuple, MultTuple, TempFileTuple Pick one: I'm sorry I opined. -- Simon Riggs EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
