Re: Significant Execution Time Difference Between PG13.14 and PG16.4 for Query on information_schema Tables.

From: Richard Guo <guofenglinux(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: David Rowley <dgrowleyml(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: 2024-08-29 01:54:57
Message-ID: CAMbWs4-na1ynWwcanzQL85SyjgQ_QfNoxJ3vp3DH14iOtYiQ6g@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Aug 29, 2024 at 4:47 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> In the meantime, I think this test case is mighty artificial,
> and it wouldn't bother me any to just take it out again for the
> time being.

Yeah, I think we can remove the 't1.two+t2.two' test case if we go
with your proposed patch to address this performance regression.

Thanks
Richard

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Jaskiewicz 2024-08-29 01:58:06 Postgres Logical Replication - how to see what subscriber is doing with received data?
Previous Message Jacob Biesinger 2024-08-28 22:19:54 Re: Ghost data from failed FDW transactions?

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu) 2024-08-29 02:05:49 RE: Collect statistics about conflicts in logical replication
Previous Message Nathan Bossart 2024-08-29 01:28:03 Re: Removing log_cnt from pg_sequence_read_tuple()