| From: | "Luke Lonergan" <llonergan(at)greenplum(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us, "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, zhouqq(at)cs(dot)toronto(dot)edu, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Warm-cache prefetching |
| Date: | 2005-12-09 22:19:37 |
| Message-ID: | BFBF42F9.16477%llonergan@greenplum.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom,
On 12/9/05 2:14 PM, "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
>> Luke Lonergan wrote:
>>> It (the compute intensity optimization) is what we did for copy parsing, and
>>> it sped up by a factor of 100+.
>
>> The changes made to COPY were portable, though.
>
> In fact, the changes made to COPY had absolutely nada to do with any of
> the things discussed in this thread.
Yes, they do, you must not have read my post in this thread on compute
intensity and removing pipeline stalls.
> BTW, "sped up by 100%" (which is already an overstatement of what was
> actually accomplished) is a long way from "sped up by a factor of 100".
Wrong again - the code section that did parsing sped up by 100x, but the
overall improvement was *only* 100% in our version and 60% in your version.
- Luke
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2005-12-09 22:32:47 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Translation typo fix |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-12-09 22:14:34 | Re: Warm-cache prefetching |