Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1jl97d-0007qj-GT for pgsql-performance@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 10:47:17 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1jl97c-00073Z-Fe for pgsql-performance@arkaria.postgresql.org; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 10:47:16 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1jl7oL-0005Lp-6S for pgsql-performance@lists.postgresql.org; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 09:23:17 +0000 Received: from n3.nabble.com ([162.255.23.22]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1jl7oJ-0004cl-5N for pgsql-performance@postgresql.org; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 09:23:16 +0000 Received: from n3.nabble.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by n3.nabble.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB8EC1E93EA6E for ; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 02:23:14 -0700 (MST) Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2020 02:23:14 -0700 (MST) From: regrog To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Message-ID: <1592299394670-0.post@n3.nabble.com> In-Reply-To: <1591975278775-0.post@n3.nabble.com> References: <1591975278775-0.post@n3.nabble.com> Subject: Re: view reading information_schema is slow in PostgreSQL 12 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Precedence: bulk I tested both postgres 12.3 and 13 beta 1 and the results are the same. I could read the pg_ tables instead of the views in the information_schema but that's the SQL standard schema so I'd prefer to stick to that. I reported this issue because the performance gap is huge and that could be useful to bring in some improvements. The DDL is still evolving so a materialized table/view is not an option at the moment. I'll try to remove the <> 'CHECK' clause, I'm quite sure we needed that for some reason but I didn't follow that change. Thanks -- Sent from: https://www.postgresql-archive.org/PostgreSQL-performance-f2050081.html