| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Jacob Champion <jacob(dot)champion(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: test_json_parser/002_inline is kind of slow |
| Date: | 2025-09-27 16:43:49 |
| Message-ID: | 172894.1758991429@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> On 2025-09-26 Fr 8:06 PM, Jacob Champion wrote:
>> Unfortunately it only gives about a 4x speedup on my machine, and I
>> was hoping for much more. (We should really expect this entire thing
>> to run in a fraction of a second.)
>>
>> Let me know if you think the tradeoff is worth it for now; I can
>> polish it up if so.
> On my (Linux) test it went from 3.75s to 0.78s, nearly 80% reduction. I
> think the reduction on Windows is likely to be more. So I think this is
> worth doing.
I tried it on my Mac M4 laptop, and saw the 002 test dropping from
3592 ms to 540 ms, about an 85% savings. So I agree this is worth
doing. It's still unclear why Robert is seeing times so much worse
than mine, though.
I didn't read the patch too carefully, but the changes in the
002_inline.pl script itself seem reasonable enough.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Florents Tselai | 2025-09-27 17:16:19 | Add jsonb_translate(jsonb, from, to) |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2025-09-27 16:03:10 | Re: [PATCH] GROUP BY ALL |