Re: Significant Execution Time Difference Between PG13.14 and PG16.4 for Query on information_schema Tables. - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Justin Clift
Subject Re: Significant Execution Time Difference Between PG13.14 and PG16.4 for Query on information_schema Tables.
Date
Msg-id 7b97171e276c41ec6ae4eeb8c2e8b47d@postgresql.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Significant Execution Time Difference Between PG13.14 and PG16.4 for Query on information_schema Tables.  (David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Significant Execution Time Difference Between PG13.14 and PG16.4 for Query on information_schema Tables.
List pgsql-general
On 2024-08-27 20:14, David Rowley wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Aug 2024 at 18:00, Justin Clift <justin@postgresql.org> 
> wrote:
>> As a general thought, seeing that this might be an actual problem
>> should some kind of automated testing be added that checks for
>> performance regressions like this?
> 
> We normally try to catch these sorts of things with regression tests.
> Of course, that requires having a test that would catch a particular
> problem, which we don't seem to have for this particular case.  A
> performance test would also require testing a particular scenario, so
> I don't see why that's better.  A regression test is better suited as
> there's no middle ground between pass and fail.

Yeah, that's the kind of thing I was thinking.

Any idea who normally does those, and if it would be reasonable to add
test(s) for the internal information tables?

Regards and best wishes,

Justin Clift



pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: KK CHN
Date:
Subject: Pgbackrest specifying the default DB necessary/correct way ?
Next
From: Laurenz Albe
Date:
Subject: Re: Strange behaviors with ranges