* 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
Description: Digital signature