* 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..?
Thanks,
Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
