iasing makes a noticeable difference or not...
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"You can't prove anything."
-- Gödel's Incompetence Theorem
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
On 4/27/06, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If we do subclassing like this:
>
> struct Node { ... };
> struct Value { struct Node; ... };
> etc.
>
> do we still run into the alias problem?
Nope, it appears to get rid of the alias problem completely. But it
requires
andate that every part of
> the system use the identical massively-overloaded union struct to refer
> to every node.
If we do subclassing like this:
struct Node { ... };
struct Value { struct Node; ... };
etc.
do we still run into the alias problem?
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"
er reorders the assignment that makeNode makes with that of the
main function.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"You can't prove anything."
-- Gödel's Incompetence Theorem
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
C99's "restrict".
> 4. Find the option for disabling strict alias and get configure to add
> that.
You'll still lose performance, but the option is "-qalias=noansi".
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"You can't prove anything.&q
or
instrumentation et cetera.
2. Make the makeNode macro cast to the derived structure before
assigning the tag: Minor code change, makes assumptions about derived
structures.
3. Get configure to select "cc" instead of "xlc": No code change,
loses some performance.
--
Taral
On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 11:23:47AM -0600, Taral wrote:
> Yes, that's exactly it. It's an index _scan_. It should simply be able
> to read the maximum straight from the btree.
Still doesn't work, even with rewritten query. It sort a
Limit(Sort(Index Scan)), with 1333 rows
On Sat, Mar 15, 2003 at 09:23:28AM -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 14:19:46 -0600,
> Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Same setup, different query:
> >
> > test=> explain select max(time) from test where id = '1';
> &g
gt; restriction on its scope of usefulness...
I don't think so, since even in the non-limit case it avoids having to
do a full sort if the number of initial streams is finite and small (as
in the case I demonstrated), reducing time complexity to O(N).
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
This me
the index being used to
retrieve the maximum value?
On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 03:10:49PM -0600, Taral wrote:
> I have a table "test" that looks like this:
>
> CREATE TABLE test (
> id BIGINT,
> time INTEGER
> );
>
> There is an index:
>
> CREATE IND
20, you're retrieving 200x too
much data from disk.
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
This message is digitally signed. Please PGP encrypt mail to me.
"Most parents have better things to do with their time than take care of
their children." -- Me
pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
going in in future is to merge
> multiple indexscans using bitmap techniques, so that the output
> ordering of the scans couldn't be counted on anyway.
I don't understand this. What do these bitmap techniques do?
--
Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
This message is digitally signed.
I tried general, but no response. Anyone here can shed some light on the
issue? Do I need to code merge sort into postgresql?
- Forwarded message from Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -
From: Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 17:54:35 -0600
Subje
13 matches
Mail list logo
