| From: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Richard Guo <guofenglinux(at)gmail(dot)com>, nikhil raj <nikhilraj474(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Significant Execution Time Difference Between PG13.14 and PG16.4 for Query on information_schema Tables. |
| Date: | 2024-08-27 23:57:53 |
| Message-ID: | CAApHDvr2v7iwMUsCQKxUPSSzTGuBOx1_e0hyEA8VLy1or35JVA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 28 Aug 2024 at 11:37, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Oh, scratch that, I see you mean this is an additional way to do it
> not the only way to do it. But I'm confused why it works for
> t1.two+1 AS c1
> but not
> t1.two+t2.two AS c1
> Those ought to look pretty much the same for this purpose.
The bms_overlap(pull_varnos(rcon->root, newnode), rcon->relids) test
is false with t1.two+1. Looks like there needs to be a Var from t2
for the bms_overlap to be true
David
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jacob Biesinger | 2024-08-28 01:03:16 | Ghost data from failed FDW transactions? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2024-08-27 23:37:56 | Re: Significant Execution Time Difference Between PG13.14 and PG16.4 for Query on information_schema Tables. |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2024-08-28 00:36:56 | Re: Segfault in jit tuple deforming on arm64 due to LLVM issue |
| Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2024-08-27 23:41:43 | Re: Showing primitive index scan count in EXPLAIN ANALYZE (for skip scan and SAOP scans) |