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

From Peter Geoghegan
Subject Re: PG 15 (and to a smaller degree 14) regression due to ExprEvalStep size
Date
Msg-id CAH2-WznM2gGO7O0w1sWYdBV3U6RLZvRhoWEr20+dS02QV3hqjA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: PG 15 (and to a smaller degree 14) regression due to ExprEvalStep size  (David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: PG 15 (and to a smaller degree 14) regression due to ExprEvalStep size
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Jun 16, 2022 at 7:15 PM David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com> wrote:
> So, there appears to be no performance regression due to the extra
> indirection. There's maybe even some gains due to the smaller step
> size.

Have you tried this with the insert benchmark [1]?

I've run it myself in the past (when working on B-Tree deduplication).
It's quite straightforward to set up and run.

[1] http://smalldatum.blogspot.com/2017/06/the-insert-benchmark.html
-- 
Peter Geoghegan



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: libpq: Remove redundant null pointer checks before free()
Next
From: David Rowley
Date:
Subject: Re: PG 15 (and to a smaller degree 14) regression due to ExprEvalStep size