On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 4:44 PM, Tomas Vondra <tomas.von...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 10/13/2017 10:04 PM, Robert Haas wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 11:03 PM, David Rowley >> <david.row...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >>> -- Unpatched >>> Planning time: 0.184 ms >>> Execution time: 105.878 ms >>> >>> -- Patched >>> Planning time: 2.175 ms >>> Execution time: 106.326 ms >> >> This might not be the best example to show the advantages of the >> patch, honestly. > > Not sure what exactly is your point? If you're suggesting this example > is bad because the planning time increased from 0.184 to 2.175 ms, then > perhaps consider the plans were likely generated on a assert-enabled > build and on a laptop (both of which adds quite a bit of noise to > occasional timings). The patch has no impact on planning time (at least > I've been unable to measure any).
I don't really think there's a problem with the patch; I just noticed that with the patch applied both the planning and execution time went up. I understand that's because this is a toy example, not a real one. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers