On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 4:43 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Paul Ramsey writes:
>>> Whether I get a parallel aggregate seems entirely determined by the number
>>> of rows, not the cost of preparing those rows.
>
>> This is true, as far as I can tell and unfortunate. Feeding tables with
>> 100ks of rows, I
On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 2:35 AM, Jeff Janes wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 9:15 PM, Amit Kapila
> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 3:05 AM, Jeff Janes wrote:
>> > On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Thomas Munro
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 3:19 PM, Amit Kapila
>> >> wrot
On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 06:06:40AM +0200, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> Please, if you can, try it write. I am little bit lost :)
I'm attaching the patch I desired. Please review. This will probably miss
this week's minor releases. If there's significant support, I could instead
push before the wrap.
On 2017-11-05 01:05:59 +0100, Robert Haas wrote:
> skip-gather-project-v1.patch does what it says on the tin. I still
> don't have a test case for this, and I didn't find that it helped very
> much, but it would probably help more in a test case with more
> columns, and you said this looked like a
On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 5:55 PM, Andres Freund wrote:
>> master: 21436.745, 20978.355, 19918.617
>> patch: 15896.573, 15880.652, 15967.176
>>
>> Median-to-median, that's about a 24% improvement.
>
> Neat!
With the attached stack of 4 patches, I get: 10811.768 ms, 10743.424
ms, 10632.006 ms, about
Юрий Соколов wrote:
tps is also reflects changes:
~17ktps with qsort
~19ktps with bucket sort
Also vacuum of benchmark's table is also improved:
~3s with qsort,
~2.4s with bucket sort
One thing that you have to be careful with when it comes to our qsort
with partially presored inputs is what
2017-11-03 5:46 GMT+03:00 Tom Lane :
>
> Sokolov Yura writes:
> > [ 0001-Improve-compactify_tuples.patch, v5 or thereabouts ]
>
> I went to check the shellsort algorithm against Wikipedia's entry,
> and found that this appears to be an incorrect implementation of
> shellsort: where pg_shell_sort_p
... at
https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commitdiff;h=42de8a0255c2509bf179205e94b9d65f9d6f3cf9
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mail
On 10/5/17, 11:53 PM, "Jing Wang" wrote:
> The patch has been updated according to Nathan's comments.
> Thanks Nathan's review.
Thanks for the new versions of the patches. I apologize for
the long delay for this new review.
It looks like the no-pgdump patch needs a rebase at this point.
I was
Just leave it as char*. If you change the endptr argument you're going to
force every call site to change their return variable, and some of them
would end up having to cast away the const on their end.
OK, here is an updated patch with the controversial bits removed.
I'm in general favor i
Hi,
right now it's hard to figure out whether a plain indexscan returns
matches that then get eliminated due to visibility checks in the
heap. For both index only scans (via "Heap Fetches") and bitmapscans
(via row mismatches between bitmap heap and index scans) one can gather
that to some degree
On Sat, Nov 4, 2017 at 1:23 AM, Michael Paquier
wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 1:55 PM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello
> wrote:
> >> Passing the database name and user name does not look much useful to
> >> me. You can have access to this data already with CurrentUserId and
> >> MyDatabaseId.
> >
> >
On 2017-11-04 06:15:00 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> The current testcase, and I think the descriptions in the relevant
> threads, all actually fail to point out the precise way the bug is
> triggered. As e.g. evidenced that the freeze-the-dead case appears to
> not cause any failures in !assertio
Hi,
On 2017-11-04 16:38:31 +0530, Robert Haas wrote:
> On hydra (PPC), these changes didn't help much. Timings:
>
> master: 29605.582, 29753.417, 30160.485
> patch: 28218.396, 27986.951, 26465.584
>
> That's about a 5-6% improvement. On my MacBook, though, the
> improvement was quite a bit more:
Noah Misch writes:
> I plan to use the attached patch after the minor release tags land. If
> there's significant support, I could instead push before the wrap.
This looks fine to me --- I think you should push now.
(which reminds me, I'd better get on with making release notes.)
On 10/29/17 08:50, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 9:25 AM, Peter Eisentraut
> wrote:
>> Here is an updated patch set. This is just a rebase of the previous
>> set, no substantial changes. Based on the discussion so far, I'm
>> proposing that 0001 through 0007 could be ready to
On 2017-11-03 12:36:59 -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> Andres Freund wrote:
> > Here's that patch. I've stared at this some, and Robert did too. Robert
> > mentioned that the commit message might need some polish and I'm not
> > 100% sure about the error message texts yet.
>
> The commit message
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > CREATE PROCEDURE test()
> > LANGUAGE plpgsql
> > AS $$
> > RETURN QUERY EXECUTE 'SELECT 1 AS col1, 2 AS col2';
> > END;
> > $$;
> >
> > Or is that not possible or not desirable?
>
> RETURN means the execution ends there, so how would you return multiple
Moin,
On Fri, November 3, 2017 7:13 pm, Tom Lane wrote:
> Paul Ramsey writes:
>>> Whether I get a parallel aggregate seems entirely determined by the
>>> number
>>> of rows, not the cost of preparing those rows.
>
>> This is true, as far as I can tell and unfortunate. Feeding tables with
>> 100ks
On 11/3/17 13:54, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Would you prefer leaving the input argument as char *, or change the
>> endptr argument to const as well?
>
> Just leave it as char*. If you change the endptr argument you're going to
> force every call site to change their return variable, and some of them
>
Hello Raúl,
Sorry about the patch. Attaching it now so it can be considered as
submitted.
There is a typo in the XML doc:
1024.0/
Please check that the documentation compiles.
I'm at odds with having the integer version rely on a double pow(), even
if it works. I think that there
On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 3:09 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> 2) The spinlocks both on the the sending and receiving side a quite hot:
>
>rafia query leader:
> + 36.16% postgres postgres[.] shm_mq_receive
> + 19.49% postgres postgres[.] s_lock
> + 13.24% postgres
Hello Pavel,
Here is a v13, which is just a rebase after the documentation xml-ization.
Here is a v14, after yet another rebase, and some comments added to answer
your new comments.
I am looking to this patch.
Not sure if "cset" is best name - maybe "eset" .. like embeded set?
I used c
On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 07:41:52AM +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 19 August 2017 at 20:54, Noah Misch wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 01:59:18PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> >> On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 1:36 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> > Robert Haas writes:
> >> >> On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 3:55 PM, T
24 matches
Mail list logo