On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 at 10:17, Melanie Plageman <melanieplage...@gmail.com> wrote: > Though logically the performance with 0001 and 0002 should be the same > as master (no new non-inline function calls, no additional looping), > I've done a bit of profiling anyway. I created a large multi-GB table, > read it all into shared buffers (disabling the large sequential scan > bulkread optimization), and did a sequential SELECT count(*) from the > table. From the profiles below, you'll notice that master and the > patch are basically the same. Actual percentages vary from run-to-run. > Execution time is the same.
Can you also run a test on a Seqscan with a filter that filters out all tuples? There's less overhead in other parts of the executor with such a query. David
