On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 09:28:38AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Simon Riggs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Sun, 2008-10-26 at 21:49 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >> So I'm concluding that we can easily afford to switch to > >> tuplestore-always operation, especially if we are willing to put any > >> effort into tuplestore optimization. (I note that the current > >> tuplestore code writes 24 bytes per row for this example, which is a > >> shade on the high side for only 4 bytes payload. It looks like it > >> would be pretty easy to knock 10 bytes off that for a 40% savings in > >> I/O volume.) > > > That seems like an important, possibly more important, change. > > Yeah, seeing that both WITH and window functions will be stressing > tuplestore performance, anything we can save there is probably worth the > trouble. > > regards, tom lane > The pre-sort for index builds would also benefit from this change.
Ken -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
