On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 5:33 PM Melih Mutlu <m.melihmu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Also here are some numbers with 10 tables loaded with some data : > > | 10 MB | 100 MB > ---------------------------------------------------------- > master | 2868.524 ms | 14281.711 ms > ---------------------------------------------------------- > patch | 1750.226 ms | 14592.800 ms > > The difference between the master and the patch is getting close when the > size of tables increase, as expected. >
Right, but when the size is 100MB, it seems to be taking a bit more time. Do we want to evaluate with different sizes to see how it looks? Other than that all the numbers are good. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
