Hi,
On 04/04/2016 02:25 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote:
On 04/04/2016 02:06 PM, Teodor Sigaev wrote:
The above-described topic is currently a PostgreSQL 9.6 open item.
Teodor,
since you committed the patch believed to have created it, you own
this open
item. If that responsibility lies elsewhere, please let us know whose
responsibility it is to fix this. Since new open items may be
discovered at
any time and I want to plan to have them all fixed well in advance of
the ship
date, I will appreciate your efforts toward speedy resolution. Please
present, within 72 hours, a plan to fix the defect within seven days
of this
message. Thanks.
I'm waiting of Tomas testing. Suppose, it isn't possible now? so, will
do myself, after that I will publish results.
Ah, damn. This completely slipped from my TODO list. I'll rerun the
tests either today or tomorrow, and report the results here.
So, I've done some testing on the patch, and in short it seems fine to
me. It fixes the bug (no data corruption observed), and the performance
seems fine too.
I've tested the v2, v3 and v3.1 of the patch, to see if there are any
differences. The v2 no longer applies, so I tested it on ee943004. The
following table shows the total duration of the data load, and also
sizes of the two GIN indexes.
duration (sec) subject body
---------------------------------------------------------------
v2 1290 23 MB 684 MB
v3 1360 24 MB 487 MB
v3.1 1360 24 MB 488 MB
So, looks good to me.
regards
--
Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, 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
