* Robert Haas (robertmh...@gmail.com) wrote:
> 2010/9/8 Hans-Jürgen Schönig <postg...@cybertec.at>:
> > but, it seems the problem we are looking is not sufficiently fixed yet.
> > in our case we shaved off some 18% of planning time or so - looking at the 
> > other top 2 functions i got the feeling that more can be done to reduce 
> > this. i guess we have to attack this as well.
> Just remember that four small patches (say) are apt to get committed
> faster than one big one.

Indeed, but code like this makes me wonder if this is really working the
way it's supposed to:

+   val1 = (long)pk_left->pk_eclass;
+   val2 = (long)pk_right->pk_eclass;
+   if (val1 < val2)
+       return -1;
+   else if (val1 > val2)
+       return 1;

Have you compared how big the tree gets to the size of the list it's
supposed to be replacing..?



Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply via email to