On Mon, 5 Dec 2022 at 21:28, David Rowley <dgrowle...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, 6 Dec 2022 at 04:45, Thom Brown <t...@linux.com> wrote: > > Testing your patches with the same 1024 partitions, each with 64 > > sub-partitions, I get a planning time of 205.020 ms, which is now a > > 1,377x speedup. This has essentially reduced the planning time from a > > catastrophe to a complete non-issue. Huge win! > > Thanks for testing the v10 patches. > > I wouldn't have expected such additional gains from v10. I was mostly > focused on trying to minimise any performance regression for simple > queries that wouldn't benefit from indexing the EquivalenceMembers. > Your query sounds like it does not fit into that category. Perhaps it > is down to the fact that v9-0002 or v9-0003 reverts a couple of the > optimisations that is causing v9 to be slower than v10 for your query. > It's hard to tell without more details of what you're running.
I celebrated prematurely as I neglected to wait for the 6th execution of the prepared statement, which shows the real result. With the v10 patches, it takes 5632.040 ms, a speedup of 50x. Testing the v9 patches, the same query takes 3388.173 ms, a speedup of 83x. And re-testing v8, I'm getting roughly the same times. These are all with a cold cache. So the result isn't as dramatic as I had initially interpreted it to have unfortunately. -- Thom
