Re: unnecessary executor overheads around seqscans

On 2026-01-26 14:32:50 +1300, David Rowley wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Jan 2026 at 04:36, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> > On 2026-01-24 19:36:08 +1300, David Rowley wrote:
> > > I also noticed my compiler does not inline SeqNext(). Adding a
> > > pg_attribute_always_inline results in it getting inlined and gives a
> > > small speedup.
> >
> > Oh,m that's not good. I think we really had assumed that it would with the 18
> > changes around this. It does here, but that's probably because I use -O3.
> 
> To reduce the variables here, I've pushed a fix for that after a quick
> test showed a 3.9% speedup on a 1 million row table with a single int4
> column filtering out all rows. I noticed that clang also didn't inline
> with -O2. It does now.

Thanks!