pg.ddx.io  pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org mailing list archive  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: Claudio Freire <klaussfreire@gmail.com>
Cc: Юрий Соколов <funny.falcon@gmail.com>
Cc: Sokolov Yura <funny.falcon@postgrespro.ru>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi>
Cc: PostgreSQL-Dev <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Small improvement to compactify_tuples
Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2017 10:33:19 -0500
Message-ID: <19570.1510155199@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+TgmobyDksaVkoj=VTFovcw02mMBrjsbx7F9Nvm4tXTHU6HfQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAL-rCA10_Tf47iCPMLrR9DVKS0cG-we4eRU-7bxtgCPeAbrqog@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAGTBQpaq4HAtMO-WPaB5dbrLBXcm69+eZC2C51A1oy4rfO+PMg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAL-rCA1Rk=hU_vEiX5s3_-qCV+mx6JnpsvCr5AeBh57igMvBuw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAGTBQpa7-t41u_AkfgEWtVFDi2j6qZ2-YbnSHhN8oaGkbOJF4Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAL-rCA1_KLQjhyba7ow0VH9Nd6=iO8GzYSrSFVBDvEX8zeCQ_w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAGTBQpY9RiNGheQcvhTkOqyULvZAjXbjOX1Yj_zmw+zzTg3n6Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAL-rCA0fcwsWcUb5H8bM8ZCBFbw4iVo-FfOzfRomS+edHeSb5A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAGTBQpaZBjJfYGmc=RQ-mG1cWtArvoNV0gMH4qrBNkiaFFUfAQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAL-rCA2toMO_NwXb6N85wGJ_KRYSCxwzEEc0-hTV0Oyr86wotw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAGTBQpbX6Pv1jLc=CjH67qkKGyuL0EwWcoorjg+UfD4LcfiZ_Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<20171107152004.axgznk3n5tkzvnnt@alap3.anarazel.de>
	<29007.1510090796@sss.pgh.pa.us>
	<CA+TgmobyDksaVkoj=VTFovcw02mMBrjsbx7F9Nvm4tXTHU6HfQ@mail.gmail.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=unsub%20pgsql-hackers>

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
> On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 4:39 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> What I'm getting from the standard pgbench measurements, on both machines,
>> is that this patch might be a couple percent slower than HEAD, but that is
>> barely above the noise floor so I'm not too sure about it.

> Hmm.  It seems like slowing down single client performance by a couple
> of percent is something that we really don't want to do.

I do not think there is any change here that can be proven to always be a
win.  Certainly the original patch, which proposes to replace an O(n log n)
sort algorithm with an O(n^2) one, should not be thought to be that.
The question to focus on is what's the average case, and I'm not sure how
to decide what the average case is.  But more than two test scenarios
would be a good start.

			regards, tom lane


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers



view thread (60+ messages)  latest in thread

Message-ID: <19570.1510155199@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Permalink:  ../19570.1510155199@sss.pgh.pa.us/
Also on:    postgresql.org/message-id/19570.1510155199@sss.pgh.pa.us

 · 

reply
Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
  reply via email

  To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
  Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, robertmhaas@gmail.com, andres@anarazel.de, klaussfreire@gmail.com, funny.falcon@gmail.com, funny.falcon@postgrespro.ru, alvherre@2ndquadrant.com, hlinnaka@iki.fi
  Subject: Re: Small improvement to compactify_tuples
  In-Reply-To: <19570.1510155199@sss.pgh.pa.us>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox