On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 at 10:17, Melanie Plageman
<melanieplageman@gmail.com> wrote:
> Though logically the performance with 0001 and 0002 should be the same
> as master (no new non-inline function calls, no additional looping),
> I've done a bit of profiling anyway. I created a large multi-GB table,
> read it all into shared buffers (disabling the large sequential scan
> bulkread optimization), and did a sequential SELECT count(*) from the
> table. From the profiles below, you'll notice that master and the
> patch are basically the same. Actual percentages vary from run-to-run.
> Execution time is the same.
Can you also run a test on a Seqscan with a filter that filters out
all tuples? There's less overhead in other parts of the executor with
such a query.
David
