| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
|---|---|
| To: | Benoit Tigeot <benoit(dot)tigeot(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com>, benoit <benoit(at)hopsandfork(dot)com>, Alexander Korotkov <aekorotkov(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> |
| Subject: | Re: Optimizing nbtree ScalarArrayOp execution, allowing multi-column ordered scans, skip scan |
| Date: | 2024-03-21 22:05:39 |
| Message-ID: | CAH2-WzkmW0grT9Y+Hu3zmGB=tD6_sQRQC2QwwV+PKKBKOOW37Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Mar 7, 2024 at 10:42 AM Benoit Tigeot <benoit(dot)tigeot(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I am not up to date with the last version of patch but I did a regular benchmark with version 11 and typical issue we have at the moment and the result are still very very good. [1]
Thanks for providing the test case. It was definitely important back
when the ideas behind the patch had not yet fully developed. It helped
me to realize that my thinking around non-required arrays (meaning
arrays that cannot reposition the scan, and just filter out
non-matching tuples) was still sloppy.
> In term of performance improvement the last proposals could be a real game changer for 2 of our biggest databases. We hope that Postgres 17 will contain those improvements.
Current plan is to commit this patch in the next couple of weeks,
ahead of Postgres 17 feature freeze.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2024-03-21 22:08:10 | Re: Refactoring of pg_resetwal/t/001_basic.pl |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2024-03-21 22:01:00 | Re: Partial aggregates pushdown |