On 2025-10-20 Mo 1:04 PM, Nathan Bossart wrote:
On Mon, Oct 20, 2025 at 10:02:23AM -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 2025-10-16 Th 10:29 AM, Nazir Bilal Yavuz wrote:
With this heuristic the regression is limited by %2 in the worst case.
My worry is that the worst case is actually quite common. Sparse data sets
dominated by a lot of null values (and hence lots of special characters) are
very common. Are people prepared to accept a 2% regression on load times for
such data sets?
Without knowing how common it is, I think it's difficult to judge whether
2% is a reasonable trade-off. If <5% of workloads might see a small
regression while the other >95% see double-digit percentage improvements,
then I might argue that it's fine. But I'm not sure we have any way to
know those sorts of details at the moment.
I guess what I don't understand is why we actually need to do the test continuously, even using an adaptive algorithm. Data files in my experience usually have lines with fairly similar shapes. It's highly unlikely that you will get the the first 1000 (say) lines of a file that are rich in special characters and then some later significant section that isn't, or vice versa. Therefore, doing the test once should yield the correct answer that can be applied to the rest of the file. That should reduce the worst case regression to ~0% without sacrificing any of the performance gains. I appreciate the elegance of what Bilal has done here, but it does seem like overkill.
I'm also at least a little skeptical about the 2% number. IME that's
generally within the noise range and can vary greatly between machines and
test runs.
Fair point.
cheers
andrew
--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com
