On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 10:08 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 8:10 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
On a micro-optimization level, it might be worth passing the TID as
ItemPointer not ItemPointerData (ie, pass a
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 8:10 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On further review, this is definitely the way to go: it's a
straight-up win. The isnull array is never more than one element in
length, so testing the single element is quite trivial.
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 8:10 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
On a micro-optimization level, it might be worth passing the TID as
ItemPointer not ItemPointerData (ie, pass a pointer until we get to
the point of actually inserting the TID into the
On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 4:38 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jun 1, 2014 at 3:26 AM, Amit Kapila amit.kapil...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 12:04 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 2:13 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On further review, this is definitely the way to go: it's a
straight-up win. The isnull array is never more than one element in
length, so testing the single element is quite trivial. The
attached, revised patch provides a modest but useful speedup
On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 2:08 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jun 1, 2014 at 3:26 AM, Amit Kapila amit.kapil...@gmail.com
wrote:
I also think it's possible to have similar optimization for hash index
incase it has to spool the tuple for sorting.
In function
On Sun, Jun 1, 2014 at 3:26 AM, Amit Kapila amit.kapil...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 12:04 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 2:13 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
On 2014-05-05 13:52:39 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
Today, I
On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 12:04 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 2:13 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
On 2014-05-05 13:52:39 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
Today, I discovered that when building a btree index, the btree code
uses index_form_tuple()
Hi,
Today, I discovered that when building a btree index, the btree code
uses index_form_tuple() to create an index tuple from the heap tuple,
calls tuplesort_putindextuple() to copy that tuple into the sort's
memory context, and then frees the original one it built. This seemed
inefficient, so
Hi,
On 2014-05-05 13:52:39 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
Today, I discovered that when building a btree index, the btree code
uses index_form_tuple() to create an index tuple from the heap tuple,
calls tuplesort_putindextuple() to copy that tuple into the sort's
memory context, and then frees the
On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 2:13 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 2014-05-05 13:52:39 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
Today, I discovered that when building a btree index, the btree code
uses index_form_tuple() to create an index tuple from the heap tuple,
calls
11 matches
Mail list logo