Hi,
On 2018-10-17 09:48:19 +0300, Andrey Klychkov wrote:
> > Interesting. That's with an optimized build, or an assertion build?
>
> Hello,
> That was an optimized build.
>
> However I've just done some extra time tests and didn't notice so significant
> difference as early.
> Even more - avg o
> Interesting. That's with an optimized build, or an assertion build?
Hello,
That was an optimized build.
However I've just done some extra time tests and didn't notice so significant
difference as early.
Even more - avg origin 1272, avg patched 1303.
Maybe there was the autovacuum / analyze /
Hi,
On 2018-10-16 11:28:17 +0300, Andrey Klychkov wrote:
> I suggest the small attached patch that gives a bit of heap_insert() and
> heap_update() optimization
> by reducing calls of BufferGetPage(buffer) into them.
> I measured call time of these:
> heap_insert(): avg origin 13394 ns, avg patch
Hello, hackers
I suggest the small attached patch that gives a bit of heap_insert() and
heap_update() optimization
by reducing calls of BufferGetPage(buffer) into them.
I measured call time of these:
heap_insert(): avg origin 13394 ns, avg patched 12685 ns; perf increases +5.59%
heap_update(): av
