"Tom Lane" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > "Simon Riggs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> I'm slightly worried though since that seems to have changed from 8.2, >> which I oprofiled over Christmas. > > If you were testing a case with wider rows than Heikki tested, you'd see > less impact --- the cost of the old way was O(N^2) in the number of > tuples that fit on a page, so the behavior gets rapidly worse as you get > down to smaller tuple sizes. (Come to think of it, the cmin/cmax > collapse would be a factor here too.)
Or larger block sizes of course. A 32kb block would be 16x as bad which starts to be pretty serious. -- Gregory Stark EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
