Re: Significant Execution Time Difference Between PG13.14 and PG16.4 for Query on information_schema Tables. - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Justin Clift
Subject Re: Significant Execution Time Difference Between PG13.14 and PG16.4 for Query on information_schema Tables.
Date
Msg-id fa70f9fbd7a0bbfb78316dc8ac2ffddb@postgresql.org
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Significant Execution Time Difference Between PG13.14 and PG16.4 for Query on information_schema Tables.  (David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Significant Execution Time Difference Between PG13.14 and PG16.4 for Query on information_schema Tables.
List pgsql-general
On 2024-08-27 11:50, David Rowley wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Aug 2024 at 13:40, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Yeah, it looks like that condition on "table_name" is not getting
>> pushed down to the scan level anymore.  I'm not sure why not,
>> but will look closer tomorrow.
> 
> I was looking for the offending commit as at first I thought it might
> be related to Memoize. It does not seem to be.

As a general thought, seeing that this might be an actual problem
should some kind of automated testing be added that checks for
performance regressions like this?

Regards and best wishes,

Justin Clift



pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Laurenz Albe
Date:
Subject: Re: Does a partition key need to be part of a composite index for the planner to take advantage of it? (PG 16.3+)
Next
From: Avi Weinberg
Date:
Subject: logical replication - who is managing replication slots created automatically during initial sync