On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 8:14 PM Melih Mutlu <m.melihmu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com>, 16 Ara 2022 Cum, 05:46 tarihinde şunu > yazdı: >> >> 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. > > > I did a similar testing with again 100MB and also 1GB this time. > > | 100 MB | 1 GB > ---------------------------------------------------------- > master | 14761.425 ms | 160932.982 ms > ---------------------------------------------------------- > patch | 14398.408 ms | 160593.078 ms > > This time, it seems like the patch seems slightly faster than the master. > Not sure if we can say the patch slows things down (or speeds up) if the size > of tables increases. > The difference may be something arbitrary or caused by other factors. What do > you think? >
Yes, I agree with you as I also can't see an obvious reason for any slowdown with this patch's idea. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
