On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 8:14 PM Melih Mutlu <m.melihmutlu@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>, 16 Ara 2022 Cum, 05:46 tarihinde şunu yazdı:
>>
>> Right, but when the size is 100MB, it seems to be taking a bit more
>> time. Do we want to evaluate with different sizes to see how it looks?
>> Other than that all the numbers are good.
>
>
> I did a similar testing with again 100MB and also 1GB this time.
>
> | 100 MB | 1 GB
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> master | 14761.425 ms | 160932.982 ms
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> patch | 14398.408 ms | 160593.078 ms
>
> This time, it seems like the patch seems slightly faster than the master.
> Not sure if we can say the patch slows things down (or speeds up) if the size of tables increases.
> The difference may be something arbitrary or caused by other factors. What do you think?
>
Yes, I agree with you as I also can't see an obvious reason for any
slowdown with this patch's idea.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
