Re: Prefetch the next tuple's memory during seqscans

From: David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: John Naylor <john(dot)naylor(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: Aleksander Alekseev <aleksander(at)timescale(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Prefetch the next tuple's memory during seqscans
Date: 2022-11-22 22:00:27
Message-ID: CAApHDvoLOKwbe-ObFB0tet7wu7bDpCC5Fv9J_CqTMPGgvRdEvQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, 3 Nov 2022 at 22:09, John Naylor <john(dot)naylor(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> I tried a similar test, but with text fields of random length, and there is improvement here:

Thank you for testing that. Can you share which CPU this was on?

My tests were all on AMD Zen 2. I'm keen to see what the results are
on intel hardware.

David

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2022-11-22 22:02:10 Re: fixing CREATEROLE
Previous Message David Rowley 2022-11-22 21:58:07 Re: Prefetch the next tuple's memory during seqscans