List:Falcon Storage Engine« Previous MessageNext Message »
From:Vladislav Vaintroub Date:February 16 2009 8:50pm
Subject:RE: Patch for bug#42208
View as plain text  
Hi Lars-Erik,
I wonder if adding 0x00 to the (binary) string values that already start
with 0x00 would not be less works that modifying index walker etc. This
looks like huge amount of work you have done (good) but I wonder if there is
a good reason for it. Assuming (binary) strings that start with 0x00 are
really seldom, prepending 0x00 to a key after a check is not going to be an
expensive operation. And that makes NULL *really* different from other index
values. And that allows maybe in some distant future index-only access, so
you can answer "is null/is not null" without extra accessing the record and
this is a real performance advantage.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lars-Erik.Bjork@stripped [mailto:Lars-Erik.Bjork@stripped]
> Sent: Monday, February 16, 2009 8:46 PM
> To: FalconDev
> Subject: Patch for bug#42208
> 
> I have committed a patch for bug#42208 which is available - and
> explained at -
> http://lists.mysql.com/commits/66541
> 
> 
> Question: Do we reuse index walkers? Or do we traverse only once?
> Should I reset cache counters etc?
> 
> /Lars-Erik
> 
> --
> Falcon Storage Engine Mailing List
> For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/falcon
> To unsubscribe:    http://lists.mysql.com/falcon?unsub=1


Thread
Patch for bug#42208Lars-Erik Bjørk16 Feb
  • RE: Patch for bug#42208Vladislav Vaintroub16 Feb
    • RE: Patch for bug#42208Vladislav Vaintroub16 Feb
      • Re: Patch for bug#42208Jim Starkey16 Feb
        • RE: Patch for bug#42208Vladislav Vaintroub16 Feb
    • Re: Patch for bug#42208Jim Starkey16 Feb
      • RE: Patch for bug#42208Vladislav Vaintroub16 Feb
      • Re: Patch for bug#42208Lars-Erik Bjørk17 Feb
        • Re: Patch for bug#42208Kevin Lewis17 Feb
          • Re: Patch for bug#42208Ann W. Harrison18 Feb
            • Re: Patch for bug#42208Ann W. Harrison18 Feb
              • Re: Patch for bug#42208Ann W. Harrison18 Feb
                • Re: Patch for bug#42208Kevin Lewis18 Feb
                  • Re: Patch for bug#42208Ann W. Harrison18 Feb
                    • Re: Patch for bug#42208Kevin Lewis18 Feb
          • RE: Patch for bug#42208Vladislav Vaintroub18 Feb
            • RE: Patch for bug#42208Vladislav Vaintroub18 Feb
              • Re: Patch for bug#42208Kevin Lewis18 Feb
                • RE: Patch for bug#42208Vladislav Vaintroub18 Feb
                  • RE: Patch for bug#42208Vladislav Vaintroub18 Feb
              • Re: Patch for bug#42208Jim Starkey18 Feb
                • RE: Patch for bug#42208Vladislav Vaintroub18 Feb
                  • Re: Patch for bug#42208Jim Starkey18 Feb
                    • RE: Patch for bug#42208Vladislav Vaintroub18 Feb
                      • RE: Patch for bug#42208Vladislav Vaintroub18 Feb
            • Re: Patch for bug#42208Ann W. Harrison18 Feb
              • RE: Patch for bug#42208Vladislav Vaintroub18 Feb
                • Re: Patch for bug#42208Jim Starkey18 Feb
                  • Re: Patch for bug#42208Ann W. Harrison18 Feb
                    • Re: Patch for bug#42208Ann W. Harrison18 Feb
                • Re: Patch for bug#42208Ann W. Harrison18 Feb
                  • RE: Patch for bug#42208Vladislav Vaintroub18 Feb
                    • Re: Patch for bug#42208Ann W. Harrison18 Feb
                    • Re: Patch for bug#42208Kevin Lewis18 Feb
                      • Re: Patch for bug#42208Ann W. Harrison18 Feb
      • Re: Patch for bug#42208MARK CALLAGHAN17 Feb
  • Re: Patch for bug#42208Jim Starkey16 Feb