| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jim Van Fleet <vanfleet(at)us(dot)ibm(dot)com>,Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>,pgsql-hackers-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org,Rafia Sabih <rafia(dot)sabih(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: [POC] Faster processing at Gather node |
| Date: | 2017-11-05 21:40:15 |
| Message-ID: | 0EF30FB1-2B27-4432-BF72-D85CEFDF6CF6@anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On November 5, 2017 1:33:24 PM PST, Jim Van Fleet <vanfleet(at)us(dot)ibm(dot)com> wrote:
>Ran this change with hammerdb on a power 8 firestone
>
>with 2 socket, 20 core
>9.6 base -- 451991 NOPM
>0926_master -- 464385 NOPM
>11_04master -- 449177 NOPM
>11_04_patch -- 431423 NOPM
>-- two socket patch is a little down from previous base runs
>
>With one socket
>9.6 base -- 393727 NOPM
>v10rc1_base -- 350958 NOPM
>11_04master -- 306506 NOPM
>11_04_patch -- 313179 NOPM
>-- one socket 11_04 master is quite a bit down from 9.6 and
>v10rc1_base
>-- the patch is up a bit over the base
>
>Net -- the patch is about the same as current base on two socket, and
>on
>one socket -- consistent with your pgbench (?) findings
>
>As an aside, it is perhaps a worry that one socket is down over 20%
>from
>9.6 and over 10% from v10rc1
What query(s) did you measure?
Andres
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2017-11-05 22:21:04 | Re: why not parallel seq scan for slow functions |
| Previous Message | Jim Van Fleet | 2017-11-05 21:33:24 | Re: [POC] Faster processing at Gather node |