Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes: > Isn't a large portion of benefits in this patch going to be mooted by > the locking improvements discussed in the other threads? I.e. there's > hopefully not going to be a ton of cases with low overhead where we > acquire a lot of locks and release them very soon after. Sure, for DDL > etc we will, but I can't see this mattering from a performance POV?
Mmm ... AIUI, the patches currently proposed can only help for what David called "point lookup" queries. There are still going to be queries that scan a large proportion of a partition tree, so if you've got tons of partitions, you'll be concerned about this sort of thing. > I'm not against doing something like Tom proposes, but heuristics with > magic constants like this tend to age purely / are hard to tune well > across systems. I didn't say it had to be a constant ... regards, tom lane