| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| 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 17:42:30 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYBzc7gorExbu9dXgVS8D0Bib6iiuki3ZDeUB7QW_7Whg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 12:34 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > v13.2
> > 64 3231 2747 2217
> > 128 1528 1269 1121
> > 256 709 652 491
> > 1024 96 78 67
>
> > v14dev HEAD
> > 64 14835 14360 14563
> > 128 9469 9601 9490
> > 256 5523 5383 5268
> > 1024 1482 1415 1366
>
> > Clearly, we've made some very good progress here. Thanks.
>
> 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.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mark Dilger | 2021-04-07 17:50:26 | Re: multi-install PostgresNode fails with older postgres versions |
| Previous Message | Giuseppe Broccolo | 2021-04-07 17:41:08 | Re: Need help! |