From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: B-Tree support function number 3 (strxfrm() optimization) |
Date: | 2014-04-09 02:45:04 |
Message-ID: | CAM3SWZRihtyehnA2P1Wwk=a1zRWrFy2BjW7Q+MWNCMfPHiTGkg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 12:19 PM, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com> wrote:
> Looking good:
>
> -T 100 -n -f sort.sql
>
> Master: 21.670467 / 21.718653 (avg: 21.69456)
> Patch: 66.888756 / 66.888756 (avg: 66.888756)
These were almost exactly the same figures as I saw on my machine.
However, when compiling with certain additional flags -- with
CFLAGS="-O3 -march=native" -- I was able to squeeze more out of this.
My machine has a recent Intel CPU, "Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-3520M". With
these build settings the benchmark then averages about 75.5 tps across
multiple runs, which I'd call a fair additional improvement. I tried
this because I was specifically interested in the results of a memcmp
implementation that uses SIMD. I believe that these flags make
gcc/glibc use a memcmp implementation that takes advantage of SSE
where supported (and various subsequent extensions). Although I didn't
go to the trouble of verifying all this by going through the
disassembly, or instrumenting the code in any way, that is my best
guess as to what actually helped. I don't know how any of that might
be applied to improve matters in the real world, which is why I
haven't dived into this further, but it's worth being aware of.
--
Peter Geoghegan
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2014-04-09 02:48:32 | Re: default opclass for jsonb (was Re: Call for GIST/GIN/SP-GIST opclass documentation) |
Previous Message | Craig Ringer | 2014-04-09 02:03:50 | Re: Pending 9.4 patches |