| From: | Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: WIP: Upper planner pathification |
| Date: | 2016-03-01 15:09:16 |
| Message-ID: | 56D5B09C.5010405@sigaev.ru |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> I do not think the patch will make a lot of performance difference as-is;
> its value is more in what it will let us do later. There are a couple of
Yep, for now on my notebook (best from 5 tries):
% pgbench -i -s 3000
% pgbench -s 3000 -c 4 -j 4 -P 1 -T 60
HEAD 569 tps
patched 542 tps
% pgbench -s 3000 -c 4 -j 4 -P 1 -T 60 -S
HEAD 9500 tps
patched 9458 tps
Looks close to measurement error, but may be explained increased amount of work
for planning. Including, may be, more complicated path tree.
> this kind of optimization to chance. But the patch is big enough already,
> so that (and a lot of other things) are getting left for later.
Agree
--
Teodor Sigaev E-mail: teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru
WWW: http://www.sigaev.ru/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2016-03-01 15:10:12 | Re: Re: In-core regression tests for replication, cascading, archiving, PITR, etc. |
| Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2016-03-01 15:06:47 | Re: checkpointer continuous flushing - V16 |