Re: A serious change in performance between PG 15 and PG 16, 17, 18.

From: "David G(dot) Johnston" <david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Clive Boughton <clive(dot)boughton(at)softimp(dot)com(dot)au>
Cc: "pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: A serious change in performance between PG 15 and PG 16, 17, 18.
Date: 2026-02-16 04:04:35
Message-ID: CAKFQuwYPyO+S+Hrb03pPctKP3y6LRoM1OvXBwiB3N32UUy5pzQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

On Sunday, February 15, 2026, Clive Boughton <clive(dot)boughton(at)softimp(dot)com(dot)au>
wrote:
>
>
> For reasons of security I can't provide all the SQL code, but I can (if it
> is necessary) provide an outline of what the code does.
>

If you cannot provide at least explain analyze, before and after, the odds
of making progress on this is greatly diminished. A minimal reproducer you
can verify and share is exponentially better though.

It’s probably worth ensuring JIT is disabled even going off this minimal
information.

David J.

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrei Lepikhov 2026-02-16 09:05:35 Re: A serious change in performance between PG 15 and PG 16, 17, 18.
Previous Message David Rowley 2026-02-16 04:04:07 Re: A serious change in performance between PG 15 and PG 16, 17, 18.