Re: PG 15 (and to a smaller degree 14) regression due to ExprEvalStep size

From: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>
To: David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Nikita Glukhov <n(dot)gluhov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Subject: Re: PG 15 (and to a smaller degree 14) regression due to ExprEvalStep size
Date: 2022-06-17 03:33:13
Message-ID: CAH2-WznM2gGO7O0w1sWYdBV3U6RLZvRhoWEr20+dS02QV3hqjA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Jun 16, 2022 at 7:15 PM David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> So, there appears to be no performance regression due to the extra
> indirection. There's maybe even some gains due to the smaller step
> size.

Have you tried this with the insert benchmark [1]?

I've run it myself in the past (when working on B-Tree deduplication).
It's quite straightforward to set up and run.

[1] http://smalldatum.blogspot.com/2017/06/the-insert-benchmark.html
--
Peter Geoghegan

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David Rowley 2022-06-17 04:53:31 Re: PG 15 (and to a smaller degree 14) regression due to ExprEvalStep size
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2022-06-17 03:25:07 Re: libpq: Remove redundant null pointer checks before free()