seems like `cargo nextest run` just runs `--lib` tests by default? however, `cargo test` is not so slow if you do `cargo test --lib`. how do I get nextest to execute the doc tests, too?
The benchmarks are against non-doctest cargo test runs. (But you should measure against your own project, of course!) Unfortunately Cargo doesn't provide enough information for nextest to run doctests reliably with.
You can only check your email so many times, and you can only work on so many problems at once. You also generally have to be mindful of token consumption. I think it also leads to burnout to work on so much at once. I've been working this way for like a year.
Also the simpler and maybe better approach is just make the decision every time as an operation in the plan, attempt the cast if it fails then scan and cast a many times the other way, if it succeeds then use the index, this isn't hard and adds one extra cast attempt on the slow path otherwise it does what everyone has to do manually in their code like this article but transparently.
I'm not sure it makes sense to add more checks and another operation to every single query just for the case where the user explicitly mislabels the types. You're going to slow down everything everywhere (slightly) for a pretty obscure case. I suspect, in the long term, this would be a bad choice.
The check is added if it sees a varchar column and nvarchar parameter predicate on it.
It currently just does a scan in that situation which orders of magnitude more expensive with a cast for every row vs a single extra cast check on the single parameter value that may avoid all those other casts in a common situation.
There is no planning overhead, it's already detecting the situation. The execution overhead is a single extra cast on top of the cast per row, so n+1 vs n with the potential to eliminate n with a very common charset.
I feel like the less tolerance I have for ads (as time goes on), the more desperate they get in trying increasingly aggressive ways of making you watch ads. I'm never watching ads again, ever! I'm willing to pay, but not with my time for your terrible, horrendous, bullshit ads!
I don't know, man, glossy magazine ads were glamorous. sure there was stupid stuff, but the comparison between the "one weird trick" era and magazine ads of someone looking cool so you have a positive impression with some brand name is pretty stark.
> The real bottleneck is the single-threaded main loop in the postmaster.
A single-threaded event loop can do a lot of stuff. Certainly handle 4000 tasks of some sort in under 10s. Just offhand it seems like it would be eminently possible to handle incoming connections on the scale they describe in a single-threaded event loop.
Clearly the existing postgres postmaster thread is a bottleneck as it is implemented today. But I'd be interested to go deeper into what it's doing that causes it to be unable to keep up with a fairly low workload vs. what is possible to do on a single thread/core.
