From: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andreas Seltenreich <seltenreich(at)gmx(dot)de> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [sqlsmith] Failed to generate plan on lateral subqueries |
Date: | 2015-12-10 14:07:58 |
Message-ID: | CAHyXU0ymxhn06WbAW6CkD95cSOA9=pzA6QF4z1QBgnO8AAsM3Q@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 4:55 AM, Andreas Seltenreich <seltenreich(at)gmx(dot)de> wrote:
> Tom Lane writes:
>
>> Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>>> Aside from the functional issues, could your changes result in
>>> performance regressions?
> [...]
>> It's a little bit harder to gauge the impact on planner speed. The
>> transitive closure calculation could be expensive in a query with many
>> lateral references, but that doesn't seem likely to be common; and anyway
>> we'll buy back some of that cost due to simpler tests later. I'm
>> optimistic that we'll come out ahead in HEAD/9.5 after the removal
>> of LateralJoinInfo setup. It might be roughly a wash in the back
>> branches.
>
> On the empirical side: I see a speedup of 0.4% in testing speed with the
> patch applied. It could very well be me venting the room one additional
> time during the second session, resulting in the CPUs spending more time
> in their opportunistic frequency range or something.
Really...wow. That satisfies me. You ought to be commended for
sqlsmith -- great stuff.
merlin
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2015-12-10 14:32:05 | Re: Rework the way multixact truncations work |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2015-12-10 14:06:12 | Re: Is postgresql on Windows compatible with flex 2.6.0? |