On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 12:34 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> > v13.2
> > 64 3231 2747 2217
> > 128 1528 1269 1121
> > 256 709 652 491
> > 1024 96 78 67
>
> > v14dev HEAD
> > 64 14835 14360 14563
> > 128 9469 9601 9490
> > 256 5523 5383 5268
> > 1024 1482 1415 1366
>
> > Clearly, we've made some very good progress here. Thanks.
>
> Indeed, that's a pretty impressive comparison.
+1. That looks like a big improvement.
In a vacuum, you'd hope that partitioning a table would make things
faster rather than slower, when only one partition is implicated. Or
at least that the speed would stay about the same. And, while this is
a lot better, we're clearly not there yet. So I hope that, in future
releases, we can continue to find ways to whittle down the overhead.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
