Re: plan time of MASSIVE partitioning ...

Excerpts from Stephen Frost's message of mié sep 08 11:26:55 -0400 2010:
> * Hans-Jürgen Schönig (postgres(at)cybertec(dot)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 <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support