Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.183]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68ED365013C for ; Thu, 16 Oct 2008 13:27:25 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 72633-01 for ; Thu, 16 Oct 2008 13:27:18 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from wa-out-1112.google.com (wa-out-1112.google.com [209.85.146.177]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F2DC64FC00 for ; Thu, 16 Oct 2008 13:27:17 -0300 (ADT) Received: by wa-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id j4so55450wah.19 for ; Thu, 16 Oct 2008 09:27:17 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=C2MigJNBt8W/B7D3P7xQl1CBKuAfKwrzFvkuX6MGOj4=; b=rhOtXBT0exQZAfk8/3+dHSF95degv/yONGaV7CGKptU4rHAOfbkwcuGs4uFke6m4M3 B5HtR+wY/GVnNyKekFzUihN+Zwo5MI3zLNb9jRCKdp74MtWQ5PdjMcsE5JuQ6g62mw5q BdpmgkzHDt03YBMPVjpmnw5PEWvrFc8NJifWA= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references; b=sQruxUgPATFnhTt3EtkdAvMDTlyth2ErendO2trK4YPgeRswG/v2HqUMKadMRZ0A2m MEPzUf2E9QzANtC2du73f4CpkcBuD9pca+dCh6h9YKY3CKdzfkUaV1spbdzkOR5J9VJG KS2bGrT7yKlyY1Rq1EJgIw/St5sVHYN8APoxI= Received: by 10.114.182.1 with SMTP id e1mr2303450waf.154.1224174436937; Thu, 16 Oct 2008 09:27:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.114.39.11 with HTTP; Thu, 16 Oct 2008 09:27:16 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 10:27:16 -0600 From: "Scott Marlowe" To: DelGurth , "Tomasz Ostrowski" , "Mikkel H?gh" , pgsql-general Subject: Re: Drupal and PostgreSQL - performance issues? In-Reply-To: <20081016152647.GI4452@tamriel.snowman.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <7438A981-4B6A-4E5A-A1E0-50432CDEFB00@hoegh.org> <48F6EE94.8010904@batory.org.pl> <4BE94DFB-8917-4175-9083-7DEABC30BD7F@hoegh.org> <48F70157.7010601@batory.org.pl> <20081016144046.GH4452@tamriel.snowman.net> <10268b3e0810160809l3f16fba3k1d45271fbbe865b@mail.gmail.com> <20081016152647.GI4452@tamriel.snowman.net> X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=none X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200810/696 X-Sequence-Number: 138945 On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 9:26 AM, Stephen Frost wrote: > * DelGurth (delgurth@gmail.com) wrote: >> Seems Tomasz linked to the wrong patch. The patch he meant was: >> http://drupal.org/files/issues/drupal_lookup_path-6.x.patch.txt > > That's much better. > >> Also nice to see people "benchmark" differences by just executing a >> query once[2][3].... > > This thread is insane.. Is every change to drupal run through this kind > of design-by-committee? And the paranoia of a cost difference of 0.09ms > for something which ends up getting cached for one particular storage > engine under one particular database?! > > Makes me worried about drupal's future, heh. In all fairness, pgsql goes through the same kind of design by committee process. We just have a committee of very smart people hashing things out.