Zainab-Saad commented on issue #982:
URL: https://github.com/apache/age/issues/982#issuecomment-1752059252
Tested with around 1048567 edges, 12637040 and 9960576 two differently
labelled vertices.
Label redesign branch chooses normal seq scan over parallel seq scan for
simple edge findin
CapnSpek commented on issue #982:
URL: https://github.com/apache/age/issues/982#issuecomment-1753385328
Tested for around 10 vertices and 5 edges the following queries.
Starting notes:
Query 11 seems to be great importance and taking more than 1 hour to execute
in both the
CapnSpek commented on issue #982:
URL: https://github.com/apache/age/issues/982#issuecomment-1763533689
Upon checking for folder size based on the two versions.
For 10 vertices and 5 edges, the difference appears minimal.
One was 94.7 mb, while the other was 96.1
rafsun42 commented on issue #982:
URL: https://github.com/apache/age/issues/982#issuecomment-1765045565
@Zainab-Saad
1. Why does `parallel_tuple_cost` forces parallel scan? Why does PG
automatically chose parallel scan for master, but not for label redesign?
2. Is label redesi
rafsun42 commented on issue #982:
URL: https://github.com/apache/age/issues/982#issuecomment-1765047526
> Upon checking for folder size based on the two versions.
>
> For 10 vertices and 5 edges, the difference appears minimal.
>
> One was 94.7 mb, while the other was 96
CapnSpek commented on issue #982:
URL: https://github.com/apache/age/issues/982#issuecomment-1766849930
@rafsun42 I was trying to check what may be the impact on the size of
database with the update as we have added many new columns to the tables.
--
This is an automated message from the
rafsun42 closed issue #982: Analyse MATCH clause performance (relationship
basics)
URL: https://github.com/apache/age/issues/982
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
