Rafia Sabih wrote: > On completing the benchmark for all queries for the above mentioned > setup, following performance improvement can be seen, > Query | Patch | Head > 3 | 1455 | 1631 > 4 | 499 | 4344 > 5 | 1464 | 1606 > 10 | 1475 | 1599 > 12 | 1465 | 1790 > > Note that all values of execution time are in seconds. > To summarise, apart from Q4, all other queries are showing somewhat > 10-20% improvement.
Saving 90% of time on the slowest query looks like a worthy improvement on its own right. However, you're reporting execution time only, right? What happens to planning time? In a quick look, $ grep 'Planning time' pg_part_*/4* pg_part_head/4_1.out: Planning time: 3390.699 ms pg_part_head/4_2.out: Planning time: 194.211 ms pg_part_head/4_3.out: Planning time: 210.964 ms pg_part_head/4_4.out: Planning time: 4150.647 ms pg_part_patch/4_1.out: Planning time: 7577.247 ms pg_part_patch/4_2.out: Planning time: 312.421 ms pg_part_patch/4_3.out: Planning time: 304.697 ms pg_part_patch/4_4.out: Planning time: 269.778 ms I think the noise in these few results is too large to draw any conclusions. Maybe a few dozen runs of EXPLAIN (w/o ANALYZE) would tell something significant? -- Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers