On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 12:34 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > v13.2 > > 64 3231 2747 2217 > > 128 1528 1269 1121 > > 256 709 652 491 > > 1024 96 78 67 > > > v14dev HEAD > > 64 14835 14360 14563 > > 128 9469 9601 9490 > > 256 5523 5383 5268 > > 1024 1482 1415 1366 > > > Clearly, we've made some very good progress here. Thanks. > > 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. -- Robert Haas EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
