Hello David,
Thank you for your reply.
> That's certainly one side of it. On the other side, it's pretty
> important to also note that in 4 of 23 queries the result cache plan
> executed faster but the planner costed it as more expensive.
>
> I'm not saying the costing is perfect, but what I am
Thanks for doing further analysis on this.
On Mon, 26 Apr 2021 at 20:31, Yuya Watari wrote:
> Thank you for running experiments on your machine and I really
> appreciate your deep analysis.
>
> Your results are very interesting. In 5 queries, the result cache is
> cheaper but slower. Especially,
Hello David,
Thank you for running experiments on your machine and I really
appreciate your deep analysis.
Your results are very interesting. In 5 queries, the result cache is
cheaper but slower. Especially, in query 88, although the cost with
result cache is cheaper, it has 34.23% degradation in
On Tue, 20 Apr 2021 at 16:43, Yuya Watari wrote:
> I listed all indexes on my machine by executing your query. I attached
> the result to this e-mail. I hope it will help you.
Thanks for sending that.
I've now run some benchmarks of TPC-DS both with enable_resultcache on
and off. I think I've u
Hello David,
Thank you for your reply.
> Thanks for running that again. I see from the EXPLAIN ANALYZE output
> that the planner did cost the Result Cache plan slightly more
> expensive than the Hash Join plan. It's likely that add_path() did
> not consider the Hash Join plan to be worth keepin
On Wed, 14 Apr 2021 at 17:11, Yuya Watari wrote:
> I ran query 62 by "EXPLAIN (ANALYZE, TIMING OFF)" and normally. I
> attached these execution results to this e-mail. At this time, I
> executed each query only once (not twice). The results are as follows.
Thanks for running that again. I see fr
Hello David,
Thank you for your reply.
> Can you share if these times were to run EXPLAIN ANALYZE or if they
> were just the queries being executed normally?
These times were to run EXPLAIN ANALYZE. I executed each query twice,
and the **average** execution time was shown in the table of the las
On Tue, 13 Apr 2021 at 21:29, Yuya Watari wrote:
> I used the TPC-DS scale factor 100 in the evaluation. I executed all
> of the 99 queries in the TPC-DS, and the result cache worked in the 21
> queries of them. However, some queries took too much time, so I
> skipped their execution. I set work_m
Hello,
Recently, the result cache feature was committed to PostgreSQL. I
tested its performance by executing TPC-DS. As a result, I found that
there were some regressions in the query performance.
I used the TPC-DS scale factor 100 in the evaluation. I executed all
of the 99 queries in the TPC-DS
