Re: PG 15 (and to a smaller degree 14) regression due to ExprEvalStep size - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From David Rowley
Subject Re: PG 15 (and to a smaller degree 14) regression due to ExprEvalStep size
Date
Msg-id CAApHDvqivvMw=AgvVQA+dKEQJHxV5JVS8Nm48NZA+FT8vuuDcw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: PG 15 (and to a smaller degree 14) regression due to ExprEvalStep size  (Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>)
Responses Re: PG 15 (and to a smaller degree 14) regression due to ExprEvalStep size  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Fri, 17 Jun 2022 at 15:33, Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> wrote:
> Have you tried this with the insert benchmark [1]?

I was mostly focusing on the performance of the hashed saop feature
after having removed the additional fields that pushed ExprEvalStep
over 64 bytes in 14.

I agree it would be good to do further benchmarking to see if there's
anything else that's snuck into 15 that's slowed that benchmark down,
but we can likely work on that after we get the ExprEvalStep size back
to 64 bytes again.

David



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Geoghegan
Date:
Subject: Re: PG 15 (and to a smaller degree 14) regression due to ExprEvalStep size
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: libpq: Remove redundant null pointer checks before free()