| From: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Doug Doole <ddoole(at)salesforce(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: WIP: Faster Expression Processing and Tuple Deforming (including JIT) |
| Date: | 2016-12-12 04:41:08 |
| Message-ID: | CAFiTN-scW15U6CMRsGVm0Pbso+Gi7h5TRPDkFxnpVfzDrMxJ+g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 9:19 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> 0009 WIP: Add minimal keytest implementation.
>
> More or less experimental patch that tries to implement simple
> expression of the OpExpr(ScalarVar, Const) into a single expression
> evaluation step. The benefits probably aren't big enough iff we do end
> up doing JITing of expressions.
Seems like we are try to achieve same thing with 'heap scan key push
down patch'[1] as well. But I think with this patch you are covering
OpExpr(ScalarVar, Const) for all the cases, wherein with [1] we are
currently only doing it for seqscan and we are trying to make that
generic for other node as well.
So do you see any advantage of continuing [1] ? Is there something
extra we can achieve with [1] what we can not get with this patch ?
--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2016-12-12 04:43:04 | Re: Hash Indexes |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2016-12-12 04:37:48 | Re: Hash Indexes |