On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 11:02 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 1:23 AM, Pavan Deolasee <pavan.deola...@gmail.com> > > > > Comments ? Anyone thinks any/all of above is useful ? > > I doubt that any of these things make enough difference to be worth > bothering with, You're right. These are not big ticket optimisations, still I felt they are worth doing because tiny bits add up over a time and also because the code may become little simpler. The benchmarks don't show anything interesting though. The time taken to scan 100K+ bits is sub-second. So even when I tried with the attached patch, the numbers did not show any noticeable difference. It might be worth trying with a table with 1M or 10M data blocks, but I don't have such a hardware to test. The patch itself can be improved further, especially we can possibly optimise the loop and test 32-bits at a time, instead of 8 I am doing currently. Not sure its worth though. Thanks, Pavan -- Pavan Deolasee http://www.linkedin.com/in/pavandeolasee
vm_test_range-v2.patch
Description: Binary data
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
