Excerpts from Stephen Frost's message of mié sep 08 11:26:55 -0400 2010: > * Hans-Jürgen Schönig (postg...@cybertec.at) wrote: > > but, it seems the problem we are looking is not sufficiently fixed yet. > > in our case we shaved off some 18% of planning time or so - looking at the > > other top 2 functions i got the feeling that more can be done to reduce > > this. i guess we have to attack this as well. > > An 18% increase is certainly nice, provided it doesn't slow down or > break other things.. I'm looking through the patch now actually and > I'm not really happy with the naming, comments, or some of the code > flow, but I think the concept looks reasonable.
I don't understand the layering between pg_tree and rbtree. Why does it exist at all? At first I thought this was another implementation of rbtrees, but then I noticed it sits on top of it. Is this really necessary? -- Álvaro Herrera <alvhe...@commandprompt.com> The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
