On 08.09.2025 13:35, Ilia Evdokimov wrote:
Based on these results, I’d prefer the hash lookup implementation, so
I think it makes sense to improve your patch further and bring it into
good shape. Shall I take care of that, or would you prefer to do it
yourself?
I realized I mistakenly copied the wrong results for the hash-map
version in my previous draft. Sorry about that. Here are the correct
benchmark results:
Merge
default_statistics_target | Planner Speedup (×) | Planner Before (ms) |
Planner After (ms)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
100 | 1.00 | 1892.627 |
1898.622
1000 | 1.12 | 2286.922 |
2033.553
2500 | 1.92 | 4647.167 |
2423.552
5000 | 5.94 | 17964.779 |
3025.739
7500 | 10.48 | 38622.443 |
3684.262
10000 | 16.72 | 69538.085 |
4159.418
Hash-Map
default_statistics_target | Planner Speedup (×) | Planner Before (ms) |
Planner After (ms)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
100 | 1.00 | 1892.627 |
1886.969
1000 | 1.09 | 2286.922 |
2100.099
2500 | 1.94 | 4647.167 |
2400.711
5000 | 6.15 | 17964.779 |
2919.914
7500 | 10.58 | 38622.443 |
3650.375
10000 | 16.33 | 69538.085 |
4257.864
--
Best regards,
Ilia Evdokimov,
Tantor Labs LLC,
https://tantorlabs.com
