Postgres Pro
Downloads
Home   >   mailing lists

Re: A performance issue in ROW_NUMBER() OVER(ORDER BY NULL) [27 times slow than OVER()] V14.5 - Mailing list pgsql-general

From David Rowley
Subject Re: A performance issue in ROW_NUMBER() OVER(ORDER BY NULL) [27 times slow than OVER()] V14.5
Date
Msg-id CAApHDvqSR_ZQ50Q2cGicw51QhK6UJ6YwiTyw8y3XpNw_4jRBLA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: A performance issue in ROW_NUMBER() OVER(ORDER BY NULL) [27 times slow than OVER()] V14.5  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: A performance issue in ROW_NUMBER() OVER(ORDER BY NULL) [27 times slow than OVER()] V14.5  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Re: A performance issue in ROW_NUMBER() OVER(ORDER BY NULL) [27 times slow than OVER()] V14.5  (Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-general
Tree view 
On Mon, 20 Feb 2023 at 10:18, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> I don't see it at all.  Comparing your two test queries on released
> branches, I see maybe 2x penalty for the ORDER BY NULL, not 30x.
> (In HEAD there's only about 13% penalty.)  I wonder what PG version
> you are testing.

I suspect ed1a88dda would be what made this faster in master. We'll
check for peer rows to check "NULL IS NOT DISTINCT FROM NULL" prior to
that change with the ORDER BY NULL query.

David

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: A performance issue in ROW_NUMBER() OVER(ORDER BY NULL) [27 times slow than OVER()] V14.5
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: A performance issue in ROW_NUMBER() OVER(ORDER BY NULL) [27 times slow than OVER()] V14.5