Re: [PATCHES] Last infomask bit - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: [PATCHES] Last infomask bit
Date
Msg-id 12135.1168382645@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [PATCHES] Last infomask bit  (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>)
Responses Re: [PATCHES] Last infomask bit  (Heikki Linnakangas <heikki@enterprisedb.com>)
Re: [PATCHES] Last infomask bit  (Heikki Linnakangas <heikki@enterprisedb.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> 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 over again.

I'd be satisfied by a demonstration of no meaningful difference in
pgbench numbers.

It's *probably* not a problem, but you never know if you don't check...

            regards, tom lane

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: Mark/Restore and avoiding RandomAccess sorts
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCHES] Last infomask bit