Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com> writes:
> On Sun, 2008-10-26 at 21:49 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> So I'm concluding that we can easily afford to switch to
>> tuplestore-always operation, especially if we are willing to put any
>> effort into tuplestore optimization. (I note that the current
>> tuplestore code writes 24 bytes per row for this example, which is a
>> shade on the high side for only 4 bytes payload. It looks like it
>> would be pretty easy to knock 10 bytes off that for a 40% savings in
>> I/O volume.)
> That seems like an important, possibly more important, change.
Yeah, seeing that both WITH and window functions will be stressing
tuplestore performance, anything we can save there is probably worth the
trouble.
regards, tom lane
