On Fri, Aug 23, 2024 at 08:17:26AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Fri, Aug 23, 2024 at 7:02 AM bucoo <bu...@sohu.com> wrote: > > Howerver, the non-parallel hashjoin indeed showed about a 10% performance > > improvement. > > -> Hash Join (cost=508496.00..2302429.31 rows=47989008 width=0) > > (actual time=1075.213..9503.727 rows=47989007 loops=1) > > -> Hash Join (cost=508496.00..2302429.31 rows=47989008 width=0) > > (actual time=1087.588..8726.441 rows=47989007 loops=1) > > It's not a good idea to test performance with EXPLAIN ANALYZE, > generally speaking. And you usually need to test a few times and > average or something, rather than just a single test. But also, this > doesn't show the hash join being 10% faster. It shows the hash join > being essentially the same speed (1075ms unpatched, 1087ms patched), > and the aggregate node on top of it being faster. > > Now, it does seem possible to me that changing one node could cause a > performance improvement for the node above it, but I don't quite see > why that would happen in this case.
Where are we on this patch? -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> https://momjian.us EDB https://enterprisedb.com When a patient asks the doctor, "Am I going to die?", he means "Am I going to die soon?"
