| From: | Justin Clift <justin(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, nikhil raj <nikhilraj474(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-generallists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, NIKITA PATEL <patelnikita1411(at)gmail(dot)com>, Patel Khushbu <patelkhushbu2067(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Significant Execution Time Difference Between PG13.14 and PG16.4 for Query on information_schema Tables. |
| Date: | 2024-08-27 06:00:13 |
| Message-ID: | fa70f9fbd7a0bbfb78316dc8ac2ffddb@postgresql.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
On 2024-08-27 11:50, David Rowley wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Aug 2024 at 13:40, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Yeah, it looks like that condition on "table_name" is not getting
>> pushed down to the scan level anymore. I'm not sure why not,
>> but will look closer tomorrow.
>
> I was looking for the offending commit as at first I thought it might
> be related to Memoize. It does not seem to be.
As a general thought, seeing that this might be an actual problem
should some kind of automated testing be added that checks for
performance regressions like this?
Regards and best wishes,
Justin Clift
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Avi Weinberg | 2024-08-27 06:53:42 | logical replication - who is managing replication slots created automatically during initial sync |
| Previous Message | Laurenz Albe | 2024-08-27 05:03:32 | Re: Does a partition key need to be part of a composite index for the planner to take advantage of it? (PG 16.3+) |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Laurenz Albe | 2024-08-27 06:15:42 | Re: proposal: schema variables |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2024-08-27 06:00:08 | Re: Allow logical failover slots to wait on synchronous replication |