Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
Has anyone bothered to measure the overhead added by having to mask to
fetch or store the natts value? This is not a zero-cost improvement.
Tom, how should this be tested? I assume some loop of the same query
over and
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Patch applied. Thanks.
I added a comment about the unused bits in the header file.
Has anyone bothered to measure the overhead added by having to mask to
fetch or store the natts value? This is not a zero-cost
Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
Has anyone bothered to measure the overhead added by having to mask to
fetch or store the natts value? This is not a zero-cost improvement.
I haven't tested it. Agreed, it does add an AND operation to places
where
Heikki Linnakangas [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What? I'm completely lost here. What does log_temp_files have to do with
the bits on the tuple header?
Nothing, it looks like Bruce replied to the wrong message at one point
while these two threads were active ...
regards,
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Patch applied. Thanks.
I added a comment about the unused bits in the header file.
Has anyone bothered to measure the overhead added by having to mask to
fetch or store the natts
