Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 12:34 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Indeed, that's a pretty impressive comparison.
> +1. That looks like a big improvement.
> In a vacuum, you'd hope that partitioning a table would make things
> faster rather than slower, when only one partition is implicated. Or
> at least that the speed would stay about the same. And, while this is
> a lot better, we're clearly not there yet. So I hope that, in future
> releases, we can continue to find ways to whittle down the overhead.
Note that this test case includes plan_cache_mode = force_generic_plan,
so it's deliberately kneecapping our ability to tell that "only one
partition is implicated". I think things would often be better in
production cases. No argument that there's not work left to do, though.
regards, tom lane
