On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 10:19 AM Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi> wrote:
>
> On 18/01/2021 16:34, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > So according to your performance benchmark, we're willing to accept a
> > 30% performance loss on an allegedly common operation -- numkeep=0
> > numsnaps=10 becomes 49.8ns from 37.6ns. That seems a bit shocking.
> > Maybe you can claim that these operations aren't exactly hot spots, and
> > so the fact that we remain in the same power-of-ten is sufficient. Is
> > that the argument?
>
> That's right. The fast path is fast, and that's important. The slow path
> becomes 30% slower, but that's acceptable.
>
> - Heikki
>
>
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com