On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 11:54 PM, Marti Raudsepp <ma...@juffo.org> wrote: > With partial-sort-basic-1 and this fix on the same test suite, the > planner overhead is now a more manageable 0.5% to 1.3%; one test is > faster by 0.5%.
Ping, Robert or anyone, does this overhead seem bearable or is that still too much? Do these numbers look conclusive enough or should I run more tests? > I think the 1st patch now has a bug in initial_cost_mergejoin; you > still pass the "presorted_keys" argument to cost_sort, making it > calculate a partial sort cost Ping, Alexander? Regards, Marti -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
