On 25 January 2014 23:08, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 25 January 2014 22:33, Stephen Frost <sfr...@snowman.net> wrote: > >> * Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > >>> AFAICT, there was no consensus in this thread on what to do, which >>> probably has something to do with the lack of concrete performance >>> tests presented to back up any particular proposal. >> >> This I entirely agree with- more testing and more information on how >> such a change impacts other workloads would be great. Unfortunately, >> while I've provided a couple of test cases and seen similar situations >> on IRC, this is very data-dependent which makes it difficult to have >> concrete answers for every workload. >> >> Still, I'll try and spend some time w/ pg_bench's schema definition and >> writing up some larger queries to run through it (aiui, the default set >> of queries won't typically result in a hashjoin) and see what happens >> there. > > The case that action of some kind was needed was clear, for me. > Hopefully some small improvement can be found from that investigation, > even if the greatest gain is in some way under dispute.
I don't see anything for 9.4 in here now. -- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
