| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, "Tsunakawa, Takayuki" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>, "Imai, Yoshikazu" <imai(dot)yoshikazu(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, 'Simon Riggs' <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Speed up transaction completion faster after many relations are accessed in a transaction |
| Date: | 2019-04-07 08:07:58 |
| Message-ID: | 1315ba3f-64c6-452b-dfcb-61cfae314e46@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2019-04-06 05:03, Tom Lane wrote:
> Trying a standard pgbench test case (pgbench -M prepared -S with
> one client and an -s 10 database), it seems that the patch is about
> 0.5% slower than HEAD. Again, that's below the noise threshold,
> but it's not promising for the net effects of this patch on workloads
> that aren't specifically about large and prunable partition sets.
In my testing, I've also noticed that it seems to be slightly on the
slower side for these simple tests.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2019-04-07 10:39:42 | Re: monitoring CREATE INDEX [CONCURRENTLY] |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2019-04-07 08:01:16 | change password_encryption default to scram-sha-256? |