Re: Size of Path nodes - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Geoghegan
Subject Re: Size of Path nodes
Date
Msg-id CAM3SWZRSdG6m-9FMEF+o+eJ2iSTcpC2Ma9FmxO84G-em-J8eiQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Size of Path nodes  (Jim Nasby <Jim.Nasby@BlueTreble.com>)
Responses Re: Size of Path nodes  (Jim Nasby <Jim.Nasby@BlueTreble.com>)
Re: Size of Path nodes  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, Dec 4, 2015 at 2:44 PM, Jim Nasby <Jim.Nasby@bluetreble.com> wrote:
> I suspect Cachegrind[1] would answer a lot of these questions (though I've
> never actually used it). I can't get postgres to run under valgrind on my
> laptop, but maybe someone that's been successful at valgrind can try
> cachegrind (It's just another mode of valgrind).

I've used Cachegrind, and think it's pretty good. You still need a
test case that exercises what you're interested in, though.
Distributed costs are really hard to quantify. Sometimes that's
because they don't exist, and sometimes it's because they can only be
quantified as part of a value judgement.

As frustrated as I've sometimes been with those discussions, I do
recognize that there has to be a middle ground, and that the emphasis
on distributed costs has as much to do with fairness for every
contributor as anything else. I would have appreciated some attempt to
have quantified the overhead here, but would not have insisted on
Robert being as thorough as he conceivably could have been.

-- 
Peter Geoghegan



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Jim Nasby
Date:
Subject: Re: Size of Path nodes
Next
From: Chapman Flack
Date:
Subject: Re: dynloader.h missing in prebuilt package for Windows?