On Wed, Jun 12, 2024 at 4:22 AM David Christensen <david...@pgguru.net> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 10, 2024 at 8:15 AM Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jun 10, 2024 at 3:09 AM Ashutosh Bapat > > <ashutosh.bapat....@gmail.com> wrote: > > > This is just one instance of measurements. If I run the experiment > multiple times the results and the patterns will vary. Usually I have found > planning time to vary within 5% for regular tables and within 9% for > partitioned tables with a large number of partitions. Below are > measurements with the experiment repeated multiple times. For a given > number of partitioned tables (each with 1000 partitions) being joined, > planning time is measured 10 consecutive times. For this set of 10 runs we > calculate average and standard deviation of planning time. Such 10 sets are > sampled. This means planning time is sampled 100 times in total with and > without patch respectively. Measurements with master and patched are > reported in the attached excel sheet. > > > > Well, this is fine then I guess, but if the original results weren't > > stable enough for people to draw conclusions from, then it's better > > not to post them, and instead do this work to get results that are > > stable before posting. > > Just doing a quick code review of the structure and the caller, I'd > agree that this is properly hoisting the invariant, so don't see that > it should contribute to any performance regressions. To the extent > that it's called multiple times I can see that it's an improvement, > with minimal code shuffling it seems like a sensible change (even in > the single-caller case). > > In short +1 from me. > Hi David, Do you think it needs more review or we can change it to "ready for committer"? -- Best Wishes, Ashutosh Bapat
