From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Jesper Pedersen <jesper(dot)pedersen(at)redhat(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: POC: converting Lists into arrays |
Date: | 2019-07-21 14:45:32 |
Message-ID: | 1733.1563720332@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On Wed, 17 Jul 2019 at 11:06, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> (Actually, I doubt that any of these changes will really move the
>> performance needle in the real world. It's more a case of wanting
>> the code to present good examples not bad ones.)
> In spirit with the above, I'd quite like to fix a small bad example
> that I ended up with in nodeAppend.c and nodeMergeappend.c for
> run-time partition pruning.
I didn't test the patch, but just by eyeball it looks sane,
and I concur it should win if the bitmap is sparse.
One small question is whether it loses if most of the subplans
are present in the bitmap. I imagine that would be close enough
to break-even, but it might be worth trying to test to be sure.
(I'd think about breaking out just the loops in question and
testing them stand-alone, or else putting in an outer loop to
repeat them, since as you say the surrounding work probably
dominates.)
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2019-07-21 16:34:05 | Re: Fix typos and inconsistencies for HEAD (take 7) |
Previous Message | David Rowley | 2019-07-21 13:50:35 | Re: Performance issue in foreign-key-aware join estimation |