| From: | Ashutosh Bapat <ashutosh(dot)bapat(dot)oss(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Yuya Watari <watari(dot)yuya(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Dmitry Dolgov <9erthalion6(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, jian he <jian(dot)universality(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alena Rybakina <lena(dot)ribackina(at)yandex(dot)ru>, Andrei Lepikhov <a(dot)lepikhov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Zhang Mingli <zmlpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: [PoC] Reducing planning time when tables have many partitions |
| Date: | 2024-12-03 04:12:35 |
| Message-ID: | CAExHW5uVT9kNc0+RBs7eg82+vR5Tuyy34yXKegLPqmrSsJ=1Kg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Dec 2, 2024 at 2:22 PM Yuya Watari <watari(dot)yuya(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> 4. Discussion
>
> First of all, tables 1, 2 and the figure attached to this email show
> that likely and unlikely do not have the effect I expected. Rather,
> tables 3, 4, 5 and 6 imply that they can have a negative effect on
> queries A and B. So it is better to remove these likely and unlikely.
>
> For the design change, the benchmark results show that it may cause
> some regression, especially for smaller sizes. However, Figure 1 also
> shows that the regression is much smaller than its variance. This
> design change is intended to improve code maintainability. The
> regression is small enough that I think these results are acceptable.
> What do you think about this?
>
> [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAJ2pMkZk-Nr=yCKrGfGLu35gK-D179QPyxaqtJMUkO86y1NmSA@mail.gmail.com
> [2] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAJ2pMkYcKHFBD_OMUSVyhYSQU0-j9T6NZ0pL6pwbZsUCohWc7Q@mail.gmail.com
>
Hi Yuya,
For one of the earlier versions, I had reported a large memory
consumption in all cases and increase in planning time for Assert
enabled builds. How does the latest version perform in those aspects?
--
Best Wishes,
Ashutosh Bapat
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2024-12-03 04:20:42 | Re: Memory leak in WAL sender with pgoutput (v10~) |
| Previous Message | David Rowley | 2024-12-03 03:54:48 | Re: Make tuple deformation faster |