Re: Hmmm... why does CPU-intensive pl/pgsql code parallelise so badly when queries parallelise fine? Anyone else seen this?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



>> 
>> 3. I don't disagree that the benchmark code is objectively 'bad' in the sense that it is missing an important optimisation.
> 
> Particularly with regards documentation, a patch improving things is
> much more likely to improve the situation than griping.  Also,
> conversation on this list gets recorded for posterity and google is
> remarkably good at matching people looking for problems with
> solutions.  So, even in absence of a patch perhaps we've made the
> lives of future head-scratchers a little bit easier with this
> discussion.

I agree that patch>gripe, and about the google aspect. But nonetheless, a well-intentioned gripe is > ignorance of a problem. 

As mentioned earlier, I'm sick just now and will be back in hospital again tomorrow & monday, so a patch may be a little bit much to ask from me here :-) It's a bit much even keeping up with the posts on the thread so far.

I might try to fix the documentation a bit later, though as someone with no experience in marking up volatility on pl/pgsql functions I doubt my efforts would be that great. I also have other OSS project contributions that need some attention first. 

Re: the google effect. Are these mailing list archives mirrored anywhere, incidentally? For example, I notice we just lost http:reddit.com/r/amd at the weekend, all the discussion of the last few years on that forum is out of reach.  

Graeme Bell


-- 
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance




[Postgresql General]     [Postgresql PHP]     [PHP Users]     [PHP Home]     [PHP on Windows]     [Kernel Newbies]     [PHP Classes]     [PHP Books]     [PHP Databases]     [Yosemite]

  Powered by Linux