On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 3:16 PM, David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 08:51:16PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 5:42 PM, Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> wrote: >> > Well a bit more testing shows some benefit. I've sorted out a few kinks, so >> > this seems to work. In particular, with the above tables, the version >> > imported from 9.0 can create have an index created in about the same time >> > as >> > on the fresh table (identical data, but all even numbered Oids). >> > >> > Of course, with lots of odd numbered Oids, if a label gets added the >> > imported version will degrade in performance much more quickly. >> >> I'm quite impressed by the amount of time and thought being put into >> optimizing this. I didn't realize people cared so much about enum >> performance; but it's good that they do. >> >> I hope to see more such efforts in other parts of the system. > > Which parts of the system, in particular, do you have in mind? Other > people from EDB have mentioned that slimming down the on-disk > representation was one such target. What other ones would you see as > needing such attention?
On-disk footprint. WAL volume. COPY speed. Checkpoint I/O. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
