Re: Costing elided SubqueryScans more nearly correctly

From: Etsuro Fujita <etsuro(dot)fujita(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Richard Guo <guofenglinux(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Costing elided SubqueryScans more nearly correctly
Date: 2022-06-02 11:40:35
Message-ID: CAPmGK177W5Svia4_Py+D368H+eA8QuhJdAW7AnxoWqx_kn_3LA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, May 5, 2022 at 4:30 PM Richard Guo <guofenglinux(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Thu, May 5, 2022 at 7:03 AM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> 1015 improvements to 14 disimprovements isn't a bad score. I'm
>> a bit surprised there are that many removable SubqueryScans TBH;
>> maybe that's an artifact of all the "SELECT *" queries.

> The patch looks sane to me. 1015 vs 14 is a good win.

+1

Best regards,
Etsuro Fujita

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amit Kapila 2022-06-02 11:58:34 Re: bogus: logical replication rows/cols combinations
Previous Message Yura Sokolov 2022-06-02 11:34:11 Re: PG15 beta1 sort performance regression due to Generation context change