Re: ModifyTable overheads in generic plans

On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 12:34 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> > v13.2
> > 64      3231        2747        2217
> > 128     1528        1269        1121
> > 256     709         652         491
> > 1024    96          78          67
>
> > v14dev HEAD
> > 64      14835       14360       14563
> > 128     9469        9601        9490
> > 256     5523        5383        5268
> > 1024    1482        1415        1366
>
> > Clearly, we've made some very good progress here.  Thanks.
>
> Indeed, that's a pretty impressive comparison.

+1. That looks like a big improvement.

In a vacuum, you'd hope that partitioning a table would make things
faster rather than slower, when only one partition is implicated. Or
at least that the speed would stay about the same. And, while this is
a lot better, we're clearly not there yet. So I hope that, in future
releases, we can continue to find ways to whittle down the overhead.

-- 
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com