On 12/4/15 11:50 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
which means Robert has already blown the planner's space consumption out by close to a factor of 2, and I should stop worrying. Or else he should start worrying. Do we really need this field? Did anyone pay any attention to what happened to planner space consumption and performance when the parallel-scan patch went in? Or am I just too conditioned by working with last-century hardware, and I should stop caring about how large these nodes are?
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).
[1] http://valgrind.org/docs/manual/cg-manual.html -- Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX Experts in Analytics, Data Architecture and PostgreSQL Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
