On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 8:41 PM, Arthur Silva <arthurprs@gmail.com> wrote:
> The difference is small but I's definitely faster, which makes sense since
> cache line misses are probably slightly reduced.
> As in the previous runs, I ran the query a dozen times and took the average
> after excluding runs with a high deviation.
I'm not surprised that it hasn't beaten HEAD. I haven't studied the
problem in detail, but I don't think that the "cache awareness" of the
new revision is necessarily a distinct advantage.
--
Peter Geoghegan
