From: | Daniil Davydov <3danissimo(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Jingtang Zhang <mrdrivingduck(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Introduce new multi insert Table AM and improve performance of various SQL commands with it for Heap AM |
Date: | 2025-03-17 04:49:45 |
Message-ID: | CAJDiXgjTe+kYXh7mT9iYTfyVh7takX9UsuVDi8mpYN3p8009yQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
Recently I took more careful measurements of the performance. I
compared three branches with each other: HEAD, Patched and Patched
with tuplestore.
Here are the results :
1)
Test case : matview creation test attached in the email from Jingtang Zhang.
10 measurements for each branch.
Result in wall clock execution time :
HEAD
30.532 +- 0.59 seconds elapsed
Patched
20.454 +- 0.114 seconds elapsed
Patched with tuplestore
19.653 +- 0.111 seconds elapsed
2)
-- init.sql
drop table test_insert;
vacuum;
checkpoint;
create table test_insert(i int, f float);
-- iowrite.sql
insert into test_insert select g, (g % 100) / 100.0 from
generate_series(1, 1000000) as g;
Test case :
pgbench -f iowrite.sql -n -j 4 -c 10 -T 40
5 measurements for each branch.
Result in tps :
HEAD
1.025 +- 0.009
Patched
2.923 +- 0.032
Patched with tuplestore
2.987 +- 0.011
P.S.
I cannot find a commitfest entry for this patch. Should we add it there?
--
Best regards,
Daniil Davydov
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kyotaro Horiguchi | 2025-03-17 04:53:05 | Unify a recently-added inconsisnt message |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2025-03-17 04:24:49 | Re: TOAST versus toast |