From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Álvaro Herrera <alvaro(dot)herrera(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Extended statistics is not working on Vars hidden under a RelabelType |
Date: | 2017-10-14 17:48:20 |
Message-ID: | CA+Tgmoa6TOj=wiCTCWDjfk3pfFwbPbAreqQCuHyKJn3hYPj8Rw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 4:44 PM, Tomas Vondra
<tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On 10/13/2017 10:04 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 11:03 PM, David Rowley
>> <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>>> -- Unpatched
>>> Planning time: 0.184 ms
>>> Execution time: 105.878 ms
>>>
>>> -- Patched
>>> Planning time: 2.175 ms
>>> Execution time: 106.326 ms
>>
>> This might not be the best example to show the advantages of the
>> patch, honestly.
>
> Not sure what exactly is your point? If you're suggesting this example
> is bad because the planning time increased from 0.184 to 2.175 ms, then
> perhaps consider the plans were likely generated on a assert-enabled
> build and on a laptop (both of which adds quite a bit of noise to
> occasional timings). The patch has no impact on planning time (at least
> I've been unable to measure any).
I don't really think there's a problem with the patch; I just noticed
that with the patch applied both the planning and execution time went
up. I understand that's because this is a toy example, not a real
one.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2017-10-14 17:49:54 | Re: Extended statistics is not working on Vars hidden under a RelabelType |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2017-10-14 17:45:22 | Re: pg_control_recovery() return value when not in recovery |