| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>, Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com>, Anastasia Lubennikova <a(dot)lubennikova(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Paul Guo <guopa(at)vmware(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Performance degradation of REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW |
| Date: | 2021-05-24 18:21:19 |
| Message-ID: | 20210524182119.rc7htnkphvycbvg4@alap3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2021-05-24 12:37:18 +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> Another option might be changes in the binary layout - 5% change is well
> within the range that could be attributed to this, but it feels very
> hand-wavy and more like an excuse than real analysis.
I don't think 5% is likely to be explained by binary layout unless you
look for an explicitly adverse layout.
> Hmmm, thanks for reminding us that patch. Why did we reject that approach in
> favor of the current one?
Don't know about others, but I think it's way too fragile.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2021-05-24 20:44:30 | Re: CALL versus procedures with output-only arguments |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2021-05-24 18:21:04 | Re: Test of a partition with an incomplete detach has a timing issue |