Excerpts from Stephen Frost's message of mié ago 29 21:46:06 -0400 2012: > Based on the test runs that I did using Josh's box (thanks!), the > performance with the pre-allocation patch and an pre-alloc of 8 ends up > being about a wash. Allocating less (4) or more (16) actually makes > things worse. I've been playing with perf to see if I can figure out > what's going on. That hasn't been terribly productive thus far. It's a > bit frustrating. Rest assured, I'll post to the list if I'm able to > make any good headway on improving performance with this approach.
FWIW I've been wondering if it would make sense to make use of Andres' embedded list stuff in some places to alleviate part of this problem. https://commitfest.postgresql.org/action/patch_view?id=859 -- Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
