Re: Improved scanner performance

Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> Here's a breakdown of the postmaster file sizes and the wall-clock run
> time of the long-literal test:

> no options    1749912        1m58.688s
> -CFe        1754315        1m49.223s
> -CF        1817621        1m43.780s
> -CFa        1890197        1m45.600s

> Seeing this, I think -CF should be OK space and time-wise.

Looks like a reasonable compromise to me too.
        regards, tom lane