Apologies for the noise, I overlooked a compiler warning.
fixed.
-greg
> On Mar 25, 2025, at 7:47 AM, Burd, Greg wrote:
>
> Matthias,
>
> Rebased patch attached.
>
> Changes in v14:
> * UpdateContext now the location I've stored estate, resultRelInfo, etc.
25 at 13:40, Burd, Greg wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 5, 2025, at 6:39 PM, Matthias van de Meent
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, 5 Mar 2025 at 18:21, Burd, Greg wrote:
>>>
>>>> * augments IndexInfo only when needed for testing
> On Mar 5, 2025, at 5:56 PM, Matthias van de Meent
> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Sorry for the delay. This is a reply for the mail thread up to 17 Feb,
> so it might be very out-of-date by now, in which case sorry for the
> noise.
Never noise, always helpful.
> On Mon,
> On Mar 5, 2025, at 6:39 PM, Matthias van de Meent
> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 5 Mar 2025 at 18:21, Burd, Greg wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I've rebased and updated the patch a bit. The biggest change is that the
>> performance penalty measured with
Hello,
I've rebased and updated the patch a bit. The biggest change is that the
performance penalty measured with v1 of this patch is essentially gone in v10.
The overhead was due to re-creating IndexInfo information unnecessarily, which
I found existed in the estate. I've added a few fields
Changes v6 to v7:
* Fixed documentation oversight causing build failure
* Changed how I convey attribute len/by-val in IndexInfo
* Fixed method to shortcut index_unchanged_by_update() when possible
-greg
v7-0001-Expand-HOT-update-path-to-include-expression-and-.patch
Description: v7-0001-Expa
.
-greg
> On Feb 15, 2025, at 5:49 AM, Matthias van de Meent
> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 13 Feb 2025 at 19:46, Burd, Greg wrote:
>
> -
>
> I'm not a fan of how you replaced TU_UpdateIndexes with a bitmap. It
> seems unergonomic and a waste of performance.
>
the HOT optimization when
only summarizing indexes are changed.
thanks for finding this,
-greg
> On Feb 11, 2025, at 4:40 PM, Matthias van de Meent
> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 10 Feb 2025 at 19:15, Burd, Greg wrote:
>>
>> Apologies for not being clear, this preserves
> On Feb 10, 2025, at 12:17 PM, Matthias van de Meent
> wrote:
>
>>
>> I have a few concerns with the patch, things I’d greatly appreciate your
>> thoughts on:
>>
>> First, I pass an EState along the update path to enable running the checks
>> in heapam, this works but leaves me feeling as
Apologies for not being clear, this preserves the current behavior for
summarizing indexes allowing for HOT updates while also updating the index. No
degradation here that I’m aware of, indeed the tests that ensure that behavior
are unchanged and pass.
-greg
> On Feb 10, 2025, at 12:17 PM, Ma
On Feb 9, 2025, at 1:14 AM, Laurenz Albe wrote:
>
> I think that the goal of this patch is interesting and desirable.
Thanks for taking a look at it. Which version did you prefer, v3 or v4?
> The greatest concern for me is the performance impact.
Agreed, I’m still looking for ways to minimize
11 matches
Mail list logo
