On Tue, May 9, 2023 at 1:26 AM Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:
> The problem I see is that each of these new functions has a single > caller, and the only one that looks like it could have a performance > advantage is list_copy_move_nth_to_head() (which is the weirdest of the > lot). I'm inclined not to have any of these single-use functions unless > a performance case can be made for them. Yeah, maybe this is the reason I failed to devise a query that shows any performance gain. I tried with a query which makes the 'all_pathkeys' in sort_inner_and_outer being length of 500 and still cannot see any notable performance improvements gained by list_copy_move_nth_to_head. Maybe the cost of other parts of planning swamps the performance gain here? Now I agree that maybe 0002 is not worthwhile to do. Thanks Richard
