Hi, On 2026-01-26 16:47:31 +0900, Amit Langote wrote: > I tried my patch over your committed SeqNext inlining patch and ran > the following benchmark but didn't notice in material difference: > > CREATE TABLE t (a int); > INSERT INTO t SELECT generate_series(1, 1000000); > ANALYZE t;
Because the table isn't frozen, visibility checks will probably add enough per-row overhead to make any per-row micro-optimization harder to see. On my somewhat older workstation freezing is a 17% improvement. > SET max_parallel_workers_per_gather = 0; > SELECT * FROM t WHERE a = -1; > > Perhaps not too surprising given it's just eliminating a couple of > instructions per row that the branch predictor probably handles well > anyway? Still seems worth having for code hygiene if nothing else. > > Same result (no diff in perf) when I apply it over your patch to move > the scandesc == NULL check. FWIW, on my cascade lake workstation it's a, surprisingly large, 3.5%, after freezing. Without freezing there maybe still is a difference, but it's very close to the noise floor. Greetings, Andres Freund
