Re: [HACKERS] Possible micro-optimization in CacheInvalidateHeapTuple

2015-01-03 Thread Andres Freund
On 2014-10-21 19:06:41 -0500, Jim Nasby wrote: > On 10/13/14, 8:28 PM, Tom Lane wrote: > >Jim Nasby writes: > >>CacheInvalidateHeapTuple currently does the following tests first; would > >>there be a performance improvement to testing the system relation case > >>first? We're almost never in boo

Re: [HACKERS] Possible micro-optimization in CacheInvalidateHeapTuple

2014-10-21 Thread Jim Nasby
On 10/13/14, 8:28 PM, Tom Lane wrote: Jim Nasby writes: CacheInvalidateHeapTuple currently does the following tests first; would there be a performance improvement to testing the system relation case first? We're almost never in bootstrap mode, so that test is almost always a waste. Is there

Re: [HACKERS] Possible micro-optimization in CacheInvalidateHeapTuple

2014-10-13 Thread Tom Lane
Jim Nasby writes: > CacheInvalidateHeapTuple currently does the following tests first; would > there be a performance improvement to testing the system relation case first? > We're almost never in bootstrap mode, so that test is almost always a waste. > Is there any reason not to switch the two

[HACKERS] Possible micro-optimization in CacheInvalidateHeapTuple

2014-10-13 Thread Jim Nasby
CacheInvalidateHeapTuple currently does the following tests first; would there be a performance improvement to testing the system relation case first? We're almost never in bootstrap mode, so that test is almost always a waste. Is there any reason not to switch the two? /* Do nothing d