On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 6:09 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> There might be some other things we could do to provide a fast-path for
> particularly trivial cases. But on the whole I think this plot shows that
> there's no systematic problem, and indeed not really a lot of change at
> all.
Amazing data.
What query is that lone data point that took 8ms instead of 6ms to
plan in both charts (assuming it's the same data point)?
--
greg
