Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-12-07 at 16:21 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Simon Riggs wrote:
> > > Maybe the importance of the patches that were removed wasn't clear
> > > enough, so let me explain my viewpoint. On another part of this thread I
> > > summarised the feedback from others to a list of features that were
> > > definitely user noticeable. The list was:
> > >
> > > - Merge Join performance has been substantially improved when low number
> > > of duplicate join keys exist on the outer side of the join (Simon, Greg)
> >
> > Most users don't know if they are using mergejoins or not, nor are they
> > going to do anything differently now that the feature is in, so that is
> > why I don't see a need to mention it.
>
> Wow, what an amazing claim. Please post that to -performance!
I am talking the average user, not someone subscribed to performance.
> But if you applied that test, another half of the performance features
> should go also. As would many others in various other sections. I want
> them all to stay, so I won't point the finger at others. And why did we
> mention outer joins were tuned in 8.2?
This is starting to sound quite petty. I have already outlined the
logic I used. Now if you think the logic I am using is invalid we can
discuss it. If there are specific items I have added/removed that are
wrong based on that logic, be specific.
Frankly, based on the amount of time I might expend dealing with
everyone's "why isn't my item in there" I might suggest just removing
names completely just to avoid the discussion.
> The release notes are already 33 pages on Firefox's Print Preview, so a
> couple of extra sentences won't change anything.
I have to add entries based on some coherent logic, not based on a
request because then the release notes aren't consistent in their
limited coverage. And if I add everyone's two lines it will be 66 pages
with 33 pages of useful information.
For example, why add the mergejoin item and not the many other optimizer
improvements in every release? Is that useful information for the
average user? Couldn't we just tell them "Postgres is faster" and leave
it at that. If they are curious why they can ask or find out themselves.
If you want to collect all the optimizer items for 8.3 and put them in a
list we can link to them from the web site.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://postgres.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
