| From: | Sadeq Dousti <msdousti(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Sami Imseih <samimseih(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Christophe Courtois <christophe(dot)courtois(at)dalibo(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Possible regression in PG18 beta1 |
| Date: | 2025-05-17 19:00:00 |
| Message-ID: | CADE6LvjBOrFObDOGBayzcLfWRScN6hHQopPjj5R_hSeJXOjauw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>
> thanks. I don't see regression for a normal table, at least for this test.
>
No, there isn't. I just added them as per your request ;)
In terms of your original test, I tried it out on my Ubuntu machine
and with your test as-is, I see 2.8 seconds on 17.5 and 3.3 seconds
on HEAD if the plan performs a seq scan without parallelism.
>
Which is unexpected, no?
However, the test as you have it is indexing all columns
> on the table. If I just index on the filtered column
>
Yes, I agree. Changing the indexing setup will diminish the difference.
However, given the sub-optimal index, PG18 seems to be slower.
Also, there's a meaningful difference in the plans for TEMP table vs.
UNLOGGED, which is interesting.
Best regards,
Sadeq Dousti
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2025-05-17 19:38:36 | Re: POC: enable logical decoding when wal_level = 'replica' without a server restart |
| Previous Message | Sami Imseih | 2025-05-17 18:39:43 | Re: Possible regression in PG18 beta1 |