Mailing-List: contact derby-dev-help@db.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: <derby-dev@db.apache.org>
Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: local policy)
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 07:17:48 -0700
From: Rick Hillegas <Richard.Hillegas@Sun.COM>
Subject: Re: !$!% derbyall
In-reply-to: <443E5910.5050803@gmail.com>
To: derby-dev@db.apache.org
Message-id: <443E5D8C.9020702@sun.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (Windows/20050716)
References: <443D9716.5090502@sun.com> <443E47A2.4040504@sun.com>
 <443E5910.5050803@gmail.com>

Hi Army,

This is probably the issue I was referring to. If it's resolved, that's 
great.

Thanks,
-Rick

Army wrote:

> Rick Hillegas wrote:
>
>> 2) I seem to recall that, earlier this year, optimizer modifications 
>> bloated up the the per-query running time.
>
>
> Ummm...I think I'm the only one who has made optimizer modifications 
> this year, so I guess that's a reference to me.  Are you thinking 
> about any changes in particular?
>
> So far as I know, derbyall was taking just as long after each of my 
> changes as it was before, with the exception of the nist suite 
> slow-down that Ole pointed out (which has, I *think*, been resolved?) 
> and some (expected) extra time for the extra test cases that I've added.
>
> I'm not denying this, but it'd be great if you could give the specific 
> Jira issues and/or test results that are the basis of this statement.  
> If we're seeing significant slow-down because of my optimizer changes, 
> then a) something is probably wrong, and b) I wish someone would have 
> said something sooner...
>
> Army
>