From: | Mark Kirkwood <markir(at)paradise(dot)net(dot)nz> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [PATCHES] Avg performance for int8/numeric |
Date: | 2006-11-25 00:48:39 |
Message-ID: | 456792E7.7070304@paradise.net.nz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
(Blast - meant to send this to -hackers not -patches....)
Neil Conway wrote:
>
>> (it is still slower than doing sum/count - possibly due to the
>> construct/deconstruct overhead of the numeric transition array).
>
> This would indeed be worth profiling. If it turns out that array
> overhead is significant, I wonder if we could use a composite type for
> the transition variable instead. That might also make it easier to
> represent the "N" value as an int8 rather than a numeric.
>
I've profiled the 2nd patch using the setup indicated below. The first
64 lines of the flat graph are attached. The complete profile is here:
http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/markir/download/postgres/postgres-avg.gprof.gz
Setup:
avg=# \d avgtest
Table "public.avgtest"
Column | Type | Modifiers
--------+---------------+-----------
id | integer |
val0 | bigint |
val1 | numeric(12,2) |
val2 | numeric(10,0) |
avg=# analyze verbose avgtest;
INFO: analyzing "public.avgtest"
INFO: "avgtest": scanned 3000 of 87689 pages, containing 342138 live
rows and 0 dead rows; 3000 rows in sample, 10000580 estimated total rows
ANALYZE
Time: 252.033 ms
avg=# select avg(val2) from avgtest;
avg
---------------------
714285.214285800000
(1 row)
Time: 35196.028 ms
avg=# \q
regards
Mark
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
postgres-avg.gprof.head | text/plain | 4.1 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Luke Lonergan | 2006-11-25 01:38:30 | Re: Avg performance for int8/numeric |
Previous Message | Mark Kirkwood | 2006-11-25 00:46:22 | Re: Avg performance for int8/numeric |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Luke Lonergan | 2006-11-25 01:38:30 | Re: Avg performance for int8/numeric |
Previous Message | Mark Kirkwood | 2006-11-25 00:46:22 | Re: Avg performance for int8/numeric |