From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Abbreviated keys for text cost model fix |
Date: | 2015-02-23 20:52:47 |
Message-ID: | CAM3SWZQSDZQL6pQuNdPWb2MqEcX8u4eobD5yMmmW7AYGCByKDg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 11:17 AM, Tomas Vondra
<tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> So while it's true that for the 3rd query we get much worse results
> compared to the other queries (i.e. we don't get >400% speedup but ~3%
> slowdown compared to master), it's true that master performs
> exceptionally well for this query with small datasets. Once we get to 2M
> rows, the master performance drops significantly but cost-model keeps
> the performance characteristics and the speedup jumps back to ~700%
> which is nice.
>
> These numbers are for the 'ASC + unsorted row' test, but I do get
> exactly the same pattern for the 'random' tests done previously.
Yeah. Looks like you're comparing a case where the old cost model did
the right thing anyway (i.e. used abbreviation). The difference would
then be entirely explainable as noise. Right?
> It would be nice if we could address the 3% regression for the last
> query, but I guess it's not a big deal. The numbers in general are
> absolutely impressive. Kudos.
Thanks.
--
Peter Geoghegan
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2015-02-23 20:56:12 | Re: POLA violation with \c service= |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2015-02-23 20:08:19 | Re: Precedence of NOT LIKE, NOT BETWEEN, etc |