On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 08:51:16PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 5:42 PM, Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> wrote:
> > Well a bit more testing shows some benefit. I've sorted out a few kinks, so
> > this seems to work. In particular, with the above tables, the version
> > imported from 9.0 can create have an index created in about the same time as
> > on the fresh table (identical data, but all even numbered Oids).
> >
> > Of course, with lots of odd numbered Oids, if a label gets added the
> > imported version will degrade in performance much more quickly.
>
> I'm quite impressed by the amount of time and thought being put into
> optimizing this. I didn't realize people cared so much about enum
> performance; but it's good that they do.
>
> I hope to see more such efforts in other parts of the system.
Which parts of the system, in particular, do you have in mind? Other
people from EDB have mentioned that slimming down the on-disk
representation was one such target. What other ones would you see as
needing such attention?
Cheers,
David.
--
David Fetter <david@fetter.org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david.fetter@gmail.com
iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics
Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate