From: | Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com |
Cc: | ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com, orlovmg(at)gmail(dot)com, jian(dot)universality(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Add memory/disk usage for WindowAgg nodes in EXPLAIN |
Date: | 2024-09-19 01:49:17 |
Message-ID: | 20240919.104917.2122304193044088479.ishii@postgresql.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> That code could be modified to swap the tuplestores and do a
> tuplestore_clear() instead of tuplestore_end() followed by
> tuplestore_begin_heap().
>
> It's likely worthwhile from a performance point of view. Here's a
> small test as an example:
>
> master:
> postgres=# with recursive cte (a) as (select 1 union all select
> cte.a+1 from cte where cte.a+1 <= 1000000) select count(*) from cte;
> Time: 219.023 ms
> Time: 218.828 ms
> Time: 219.093 ms
>
> with attached patched:
> postgres=# with recursive cte (a) as (select 1 union all select
> cte.a+1 from cte where cte.a+1 <= 1000000) select count(*) from cte;
> Time: 169.734 ms
> Time: 164.841 ms
> Time: 169.168 ms
Impressive result. I also ran your query with count 1000.
without the patch:
Time: 3.655 ms
Time: 4.123 ms
Time: 2.163 ms
wit the patch:
Time: 3.641 ms
Time: 2.356 ms
Time: 2.347 ms
It seems with the patch the performance is slightly better or almost
same. I think the patch improves the performance without sacrificing
the smaller iteration case.
Best reagards,
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS K.K.
English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en/
Japanese:http://www.sraoss.co.jp
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David Rowley | 2024-09-19 02:11:05 | Re: Add memory/disk usage for WindowAgg nodes in EXPLAIN |
Previous Message | Noah Misch | 2024-09-19 01:46:44 | Re: pg_trgm comparison bug on cross-architecture replication due to different char implementation |