Re: gistchoose vs. bloat - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: gistchoose vs. bloat
Date
Msg-id 24647.1359059724@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: gistchoose vs. bloat  (Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: gistchoose vs. bloat
List pgsql-hackers
Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov@gmail.com> writes:
> There is another cause of overhead when use randomization in gistchoose:
> extra penalty calls. It could be significant when index fits to cache. In
> order evade it I especially change behaviour of my patch from "look
> sequentially and choose random" to "look in random order". I think we need
> to include comparison of CPU time.

Hmm ... actually, isn't that an argument in favor of Heikki's method?
The way he's doing it, we can exit without making additional penalty
calls once we've found a zero-penalty tuple and decided not to look
further (which is something with a pretty high probability).
        regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Re: patch submission: truncate trailing nulls from heap rows to reduce the size of the null bitmap [Review]
Next
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: Re: [BUGS] BUG #7815: Upgrading PostgreSQL from 9.1 to 9.2 with pg_upgrade/postgreql-setup fails - invalid status retrieve