Re: GIN data corruption bug(s) in 9.6devel - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tomas Vondra
Subject Re: GIN data corruption bug(s) in 9.6devel
Date
Msg-id 5678582D.3000601@2ndquadrant.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: GIN data corruption bug(s) in 9.6devel  (Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: GIN data corruption bug(s) in 9.6devel  (Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers

On 12/21/2015 07:41 PM, Jeff Janes wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 3:19 PM, Tomas Vondra
> <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:

...

>> So both patches seem to do the trick, but (2) is faster. Not sure
>> if this is expected. (BTW all the results are without asserts
>> enabled).
>
> Do you know what the size of the pending list was at the end of each
> test?
>
> I think last one may be faster because it left a large mess behind
> that someone needs to clean up later.

No. How do I measure it?

>
> Also, do you have the final size of the indexes in each case?

No, I haven't realized the patches do affect that, so I haven't measured it.

regards

--
Tomas Vondra                  http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Chapman Flack
Date:
Subject: Re: tracking owner of extension-managed objects
Next
From: Peter Geoghegan
Date:
Subject: Re: Re: Reusing abbreviated keys during second pass of ordered [set] aggregates