| From: | "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Shiv Iyer <shiv(at)minervadb(dot)com>, Ba Jinsheng <bajinsheng(at)u(dot)nus(dot)edu>, "pgsql-performance(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Unexpected Performance for the Function simplify_function |
| Date: | 2024-10-24 21:05:00 |
| Message-ID: | CAKFQuwZoO1RtwasxwmmNE5beQsdYBuOZo=UueHD5D=i3PDNcJA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Thursday, October 24, 2024, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Shiv Iyer <shiv(at)minervadb(dot)com> writes:
> > The query plans and results you shared illustrate the unexpected
> > performance differences between using and bypassing the
> simplify_function()
> > logic in PostgreSQL’s optimizer. Here’s an in-depth analysis and thoughts
> > on optimizing this scenario:
>
> Just out of curiosity, was this AI-generated?
>
>
Nowadays, failing the Turing Test means producing too comprehensive of an
answer to a query/situation as opposed to looking too incapable.
The real question is what prompt did the author give to which tool, and
maybe, if we are feeling generous, how much editing of the response was
performed.
David J.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Sabino Mullane | 2024-10-24 23:09:06 | Re: Unexpected Performance for the Function simplify_function |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2024-10-24 20:51:15 | Re: Unexpected Performance for the Function simplify_function |