4 ms·
Robert Haas is the real deal, and will certainly have tested this feature. Perhaps I missed it, but I don't think the post specified how many rows were in the
by quizotic 11y ago
Robert Haas is the real deal, and will certainly have tested this feature.
Perhaps I missed it, but I don't think the post specified how many rows were in the source. Could have been more than a million. Having a relatively expensive filter (regex) eliminating all results keeps the performance picture clearer. Anything done with a tuple that passes the filter would apply to both the regular and the parallel scan cases, so eliminating the results highlights just the difference between regular and parallel scans
- meshko 11y agoI really really doubt that it can process a million uncached rows under a second. But yeah, I just tested an million was not a good example because it does take only a bit over a second on decent hardware. So perhaps should have said 10 million. I agree about not returning any results being the right test.