Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 2:08 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> What this test case proves is that btree's overhead per index >> tuple touched is significantly more than the cost of the fastest path >> through HeapTupleSatisfiesMVCC, which I don't find surprising >> considering how much sweat has been expended on that code path over the >> years.
> I think HeapTupleSatisfiesMVCC is probably being skipped anyway in > this case, since all the heap pages should be PD_ALL_VISIBLE. Proves my point ;-) ... you're comparing a code path that's been beat on for *years* with one that just got written. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers