On 09.05.23 05:13, Richard Guo wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 9, 2023 at 1:26 AM Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org
> <mailto:alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>> wrote:
>
> The problem I see is that each of these new functions has a single
> caller, and the only one that looks like it could have a performance
> advantage is list_copy_move_nth_to_head() (which is the weirdest of the
> lot). I'm inclined not to have any of these single-use functions unless
> a performance case can be made for them.
>
>
> Yeah, maybe this is the reason I failed to devise a query that shows any
> performance gain. I tried with a query which makes the 'all_pathkeys'
> in sort_inner_and_outer being length of 500 and still cannot see any
> notable performance improvements gained by list_copy_move_nth_to_head.
> Maybe the cost of other parts of planning swamps the performance gain
> here? Now I agree that maybe 0002 is not worthwhile to do.
I have committed patch 0001. Since you have withdrawn 0002, this closes
the commit fest item.