From: | Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Perfomance bug in v10 |
Date: | 2017-06-02 12:24:05 |
Message-ID: | 2bc8a109-ca43-cdc0-551f-e88e1478b3a0@sigaev.ru |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>
> Teodor, could you check if this patch fixes your real-world problem?
It works fine with original query, thank you. But some other query slowdowns for
~10% (9 secs vs 10 secs). Look at following part of plans of huge query:
without patch:
-> Nested Loop (cost=34.82..50.91 rows=1 width=20)
(actual time=0.017..0.061 rows=5 loops=24121)
-> ...
-> Materialize (cost=0.56..15.69 rows=1 width=5)
(actual time=0.003..0.004 rows=2 loops=109061)
-> Index Scan using ... (cost=0.56..15.68 rows=1 width=5)
(actual time=0.013..0.014 rows=2 loops=24121)
with patch:
-> Nested Loop (cost=34.82..50.91 rows=1 width=20)
(actual time=0.018..0.063 rows=5 loops=24121)
-> ...
-> Index Scan using ... (cost=0.56..15.68 rows=1 width=5)
(actual time=0.012..0.013 rows=2 loops=109061)
(dots hidden the same parts)
As you said, it removes Materialize node, although it's useful here.
If you wish, I can do a test suite, its size will be around 10MB and send it by
private email.
--
Teodor Sigaev E-mail: teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru
WWW: http://www.sigaev.ru/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Hao Lee | 2017-06-02 12:28:24 | Re: Do we need the gcc feature "__builtin_expect" to promote the branches prediction? |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2017-06-02 12:20:25 | Re: make check false success |