On Mon, Jun 10, 2024 at 8:15 AM Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 10, 2024 at 3:09 AM Ashutosh Bapat > <ashutosh.bapat....@gmail.com> wrote: > > This is just one instance of measurements. If I run the experiment multiple > > times the results and the patterns will vary. Usually I have found planning > > time to vary within 5% for regular tables and within 9% for partitioned > > tables with a large number of partitions. Below are measurements with the > > experiment repeated multiple times. For a given number of partitioned > > tables (each with 1000 partitions) being joined, planning time is measured > > 10 consecutive times. For this set of 10 runs we calculate average and > > standard deviation of planning time. Such 10 sets are sampled. This means > > planning time is sampled 100 times in total with and without patch > > respectively. Measurements with master and patched are reported in the > > attached excel sheet. > > Well, this is fine then I guess, but if the original results weren't > stable enough for people to draw conclusions from, then it's better > not to post them, and instead do this work to get results that are > stable before posting.
Just doing a quick code review of the structure and the caller, I'd agree that this is properly hoisting the invariant, so don't see that it should contribute to any performance regressions. To the extent that it's called multiple times I can see that it's an improvement, with minimal code shuffling it seems like a sensible change (even in the single-caller case). In short +1 from me. David
