пн, 8 дек. 2025 г. в 01:31, Peter Geoghegan <[email protected]>: > On Sat, Dec 6, 2025 at 9:44 PM Peter Geoghegan <[email protected]> wrote: > > Since this ignore_killed_tuples change is also very simple, and also > > seems like an easy win, I think that it can be committed as part of > > the second patch. Without it needing to wait for too much more > > performance validation. > > My plan is to commit the entire patch series (with a modified second > patch that includes the ignore_killed_tuples change) in the next > couple of days. > > As far as I can determine through performance validation that tested a > variety of different scan types (simple point lookups, range scans, > and a variety of different SAOP scan patterns), the patch series is an > unambiguous win. It appears to be slightly faster even in > unsympathetic cases, such as standard pgbench SELECT. >
Even without the performance increase, I think this a valuable code reorganization, worth committing. I've compiled and run test (check and installcheck) with all 3 patches, did a small standard pgbench run: pgbench -s 100 -i pgbench -P 60 -T 300 Results: master: 569 TPS patched: 590 TPS +3.7% LGTM. -- Victor Yegorov
