Re: PG 15 (and to a smaller degree 14) regression due to ExprEvalStep size

From: David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Nikita Glukhov <n(dot)gluhov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Subject: Re: PG 15 (and to a smaller degree 14) regression due to ExprEvalStep size
Date: 2022-06-17 04:53:31
Message-ID: CAApHDvqivvMw=AgvVQA+dKEQJHxV5JVS8Nm48NZA+FT8vuuDcw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Fri, 17 Jun 2022 at 15:33, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:
> Have you tried this with the insert benchmark [1]?

I was mostly focusing on the performance of the hashed saop feature
after having removed the additional fields that pushed ExprEvalStep
over 64 bytes in 14.

I agree it would be good to do further benchmarking to see if there's
anything else that's snuck into 15 that's slowed that benchmark down,
but we can likely work on that after we get the ExprEvalStep size back
to 64 bytes again.

David

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2022-06-17 05:11:29 Re: libpq: Remove redundant null pointer checks before free()
Previous Message Peter Geoghegan 2022-06-17 03:33:13 Re: PG 15 (and to a smaller degree 14) regression due to ExprEvalStep size