On Tue, 20 Aug 2024 at 03:48, Ilia Evdokimov <ilya.evdoki...@tantorlabs.com> wrote: > Let's assume that this check needs to remain, and the length check doesn't > guarantee anything. However, I'm a bit concerned that there's a NULL check > here, but it's missing in the clauselist_selectivity_ext() function. For the > reasons mentioned above, I would suggest the following: either we perform the > NULL check in both places, or we don't perform it in either.
I don't follow this comparison. clauselist_selectivity_ext() is perfectly capable of accepting a NIL List of clauses. I agree with Tom that it's unlikely to be worth the risk removing the NULL check from clause_selectivity_ext(). From my point of view, the risk-to-reward ratio is nowhere near the level of being worth it. There'd just be no way to measure any sort of speedup from this change as there are far too many other things going on during planning. This one is a drop in the ocean. However, I'd like to encourage you to look for other places that might have a more meaningful impact on performance. For those, it's best to come armed with a benchmark and results that demonstrate the speedup along with your justification as to why you think the change is worthwhile. We've not received the former and you've not convinced two committers with your attempt on the latter. I suggest marking the CF entry for this patch as rejected. David
