On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 11:11 AM Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 10:19 AM Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi> wrote:
> > On 18/01/2021 16:34, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > > So according to your performance benchmark, we're willing to accept a
> > > 30% performance loss on an allegedly common operation -- numkeep=0
> > > numsnaps=10 becomes 49.8ns from 37.6ns. That seems a bit shocking.
> > > Maybe you can claim that these operations aren't exactly hot spots, and
> > > so the fact that we remain in the same power-of-ten is sufficient. Is
> > > that the argument?
> >
> > That's right. The fast path is fast, and that's important. The slow path
> > becomes 30% slower, but that's acceptable.
Sorry for the empty message.
I don't know whether a 30% slowdown will hurt anybody, but it seems
like kind of a lot, and I'm not sure I understand what corresponding
benefit we're getting.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
