On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 4:44 PM, Tomas Vondra
<tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 10/13/2017 10:04 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 11:03 PM, David Rowley
>> <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>>> -- Unpatched
>>> Planning time: 0.184 ms
>>> Execution time: 105.878 ms
>>>
>>> -- Patched
>>> Planning time: 2.175 ms
>>> Execution time: 106.326 ms
>>
>> This might not be the best example to show the advantages of the
>> patch, honestly.
>
> Not sure what exactly is your point? If you're suggesting this example
> is bad because the planning time increased from 0.184 to 2.175 ms, then
> perhaps consider the plans were likely generated on a assert-enabled
> build and on a laptop (both of which adds quite a bit of noise to
> occasional timings). The patch has no impact on planning time (at least
> I've been unable to measure any).
I don't really think there's a problem with the patch; I just noticed
that with the patch applied both the planning and execution time went
up. I understand that's because this is a toy example, not a real
one.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
