| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Amit Langote <amitlangote09(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Tsunakawa, Takayuki" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: ModifyTable overheads in generic plans |
| Date: | 2021-04-07 18:02:16 |
| Message-ID: | 1601239.1617818536@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 12:34 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Indeed, that's a pretty impressive comparison.
> +1. That looks like a big improvement.
> In a vacuum, you'd hope that partitioning a table would make things
> faster rather than slower, when only one partition is implicated. Or
> at least that the speed would stay about the same. And, while this is
> a lot better, we're clearly not there yet. So I hope that, in future
> releases, we can continue to find ways to whittle down the overhead.
Note that this test case includes plan_cache_mode = force_generic_plan,
so it's deliberately kneecapping our ability to tell that "only one
partition is implicated". I think things would often be better in
production cases. No argument that there's not work left to do, though.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais | 2021-04-07 18:07:41 | Re: multi-install PostgresNode fails with older postgres versions |
| Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2021-04-07 17:54:11 | Re: Binary search in ScalarArrayOpExpr for OR'd constant arrays |