MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CALNXOfqDr5jVRZHThyXyNftDuezjxOJB1mqw=4x1T8YBibi6uw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAG1ps1w61XD1LxUf3EBCZ=VR3S_orRj_dk6cxmO5KusBVyrgMg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAvG1pChk3W9MWkK-_JPyUdThSoJhv4MueH5i8cZS2T_HUP5dA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAG1ps1xvnTZceKK24OUfMKLPvDP2vjT-d+F2AOCWbw_v3KeEgg@mail.gmail.com>
 <2962669.1724722813@sss.pgh.pa.us> <CAApHDvpRxyw1G2HVkA=PM5Uqh59moOFqPXyMTsEDUadKo2fQTA@mail.gmail.com>
 <2965760.1724724227@sss.pgh.pa.us> <CAApHDvoQRoKHNfTaw+Sn=bZGKVmn8W-5yBPGP7+98mWJz5A9uQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <3104695.1724775341@sss.pgh.pa.us> <3147330.1724795532@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CAApHDvp1mue1a5fdfsa2z2mAS6v2d9+kxMzxH7GhAiC0Z7o8Mw@mail.gmail.com>
 <3156371.1724800521@sss.pgh.pa.us> <3159017.1724801876@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <CAApHDvr2v7iwMUsCQKxUPSSzTGuBOx1_e0hyEA8VLy1or35JVA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMbWs49gVdBxrjvz82Tqs9UL+ZDNV5cx85ZURhfxUaz-0wz-pQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <3478841.1724878067@sss.pgh.pa.us> <CAMbWs4-na1ynWwcanzQL85SyjgQ_QfNoxJ3vp3DH14iOtYiQ6g@mail.gmail.com>
 <295441.1724964783@sss.pgh.pa.us>
In-Reply-To: <295441.1724964783@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: nikhil raj <nikhilraj474@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2024 11:49:30 +0530
Message-ID: <CAG1ps1yKWfWUJs5CyHS-+7aaiYiU0g4o-b0TYuCa0Y-pZ8p3SA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Significant Execution Time Difference Between PG13.14 and PG16.4
 for Query on information_schema Tables.
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Richard Guo <guofenglinux@gmail.com>, David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>, 
	pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000c322b206225eca2e"
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAG1ps1yKWfWUJs5CyHS-%2B7aaiYiU0g4o-b0TYuCa0Y-pZ8p3SA%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

--000000000000c322b206225eca2e
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi All,

I hope you're doing well.

I'm writing to kindly requesting if there is a bug tracker ID or any
reference number associated with this issue, I would appreciate it if you
could share it with me.

Thank you for your time and assistance. Please let me know if there's any
additional information you need from me.

Best regards,

Nikhil

On Fri, 30 Aug, 2024, 2:23=E2=80=AFam Tom Lane, <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:

> Richard Guo <guofenglinux@gmail.com> writes:
> > On Thu, Aug 29, 2024 at 4:47=E2=80=AFAM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wr=
ote:
> >> In the meantime, I think this test case is mighty artificial,
> >> and it wouldn't bother me any to just take it out again for the
> >> time being.
>
> > Yeah, I think we can remove the 't1.two+t2.two' test case if we go
> > with your proposed patch to address this performance regression.
>
> Here's a polished-up patchset for that.  I made the memoize test
> removal a separate patch because (a) it only applies to master
> and (b) it seems worth calling out as something we might be able
> to revert later.
>
> I found one bug in the draft patch: add_nulling_relids only processes
> Vars of level zero, so we have to apply it before not after adjusting
> the Vars' levelsup.  An alternative could be to add a levelsup
> parameter to add_nulling_relids, but that seemed like unnecessary
> complication.
>
>                         regards, tom lane
>
>

--000000000000c322b206225eca2e
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"auto">Hi All,<div dir=3D"auto"><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div=
 dir=3D"auto">I hope you&#39;re doing well.</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></di=
v><div dir=3D"auto">I&#39;m writing to kindly requesting if there is a bug =
tracker ID or any reference number associated with this issue, I would appr=
eciate it if you could share it with me.</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><=
div dir=3D"auto">Thank you for your time and assistance. Please let me know=
 if there&#39;s any additional information you need from me.</div><div dir=
=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">Best regards,</div><div dir=3D"auto">=
<br></div><div dir=3D"auto">Nikhil</div></div></div><br><div class=3D"gmail=
_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Fri, 30 Aug, 2024, 2:23=E2=
=80=AFam Tom Lane, &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us">tgl@sss.pgh.pa.=
us</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margi=
n:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Richard Guo &lt;<=
a href=3D"mailto:guofenglinux@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank" rel=3D"noreferre=
r">guofenglinux@gmail.com</a>&gt; writes:<br>
&gt; On Thu, Aug 29, 2024 at 4:47=E2=80=AFAM Tom Lane &lt;<a href=3D"mailto=
:tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us" target=3D"_blank" rel=3D"noreferrer">tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us<=
/a>&gt; wrote:<br>
&gt;&gt; In the meantime, I think this test case is mighty artificial,<br>
&gt;&gt; and it wouldn&#39;t bother me any to just take it out again for th=
e<br>
&gt;&gt; time being.<br>
<br>
&gt; Yeah, I think we can remove the &#39;t1.two+t2.two&#39; test case if w=
e go<br>
&gt; with your proposed patch to address this performance regression.<br>
<br>
Here&#39;s a polished-up patchset for that.=C2=A0 I made the memoize test<b=
r>
removal a separate patch because (a) it only applies to master<br>
and (b) it seems worth calling out as something we might be able<br>
to revert later.<br>
<br>
I found one bug in the draft patch: add_nulling_relids only processes<br>
Vars of level zero, so we have to apply it before not after adjusting<br>
the Vars&#39; levelsup.=C2=A0 An alternative could be to add a levelsup<br>
parameter to add_nulling_relids, but that seemed like unnecessary<br>
complication.<br>
<br>
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=
=A0 =C2=A0 regards, tom lane<br>
<br>
</blockquote></div>

--000000000000c322b206225eca2e--