| From: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Hadi Moshayedi <hadi(at)moshayedi(dot)net>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "mark(dot)kirkwood(at)catalyst(dot)net(dot)nz" <mark(dot)kirkwood(at)catalyst(dot)net(dot)nz> |
| Subject: | Re: Improving avg performance for numeric |
| Date: | 2013-03-19 15:38:10 |
| Message-ID: | 1363707490.38208.YahooMailNeo@web162906.mail.bf1.yahoo.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hadi Moshayedi <hadi(at)moshayedi(dot)net> wrote:
> I updated the patch by taking ideas from your patch, and unifying
> the transition struct and update function for different
> aggregates. The speed of avg improved even more. It now has 60%
> better performance than the current committed version.
Outstanding!
> I also noticed that this patch makes matview test fail. It seems
> that it just changes the ordering of rows for queries like
> "SELECT * FROM tv;". Does this seem like a bug in my patch, or
> should we add "ORDER BY" clauses to this test to make it more
> deterministic?
I added some ORDER BY clauses. That is probably a good thing
anyway for purposes of code coverage. Does that fix it for you?
--
Kevin Grittner
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2013-03-19 16:12:12 | Re: Improving avg performance for numeric |
| Previous Message | Kohei KaiGai | 2013-03-19 15:08:23 | Re: Review of Row Level Security |