Re: Rethinking MemoryContext creation

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Rethinking MemoryContext creation
Date: 2017-12-10 15:42:24
Message-ID: 13309.1512920544@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> writes:
> On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 5:53 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Overall I'm seeing about a 5% improvement in a "pgbench -S" scenario,
>> although that number is a bit shaky since the run-to-run variation
>> is a few percent anyway.

> Is that with "-M prepared", too?

No, I didn't use that.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message james 2017-12-10 16:24:56 Re: Postgres with pthread
Previous Message Emre Hasegeli 2017-12-10 14:47:46 Re: [HACKERS] Uninterruptible slow geo_ops.c