| From: | "Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)" <kuroda(dot)hayato(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | 'Ajin Cherian' <itsajin(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | vignesh C <vignesh21(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | RE: Proposal: Filter irrelevant change before reassemble transactions during logical decoding |
| Date: | 2025-02-20 04:08:05 |
| Message-ID: | OSCPR01MB14966EA00C140647F2B3C1735F5C42@OSCPR01MB14966.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Dear Ajin,
> I compared the patch 1 which does not employ a hash cache and has the
> overhead of starting a transaction every time the filter is checked.
>
> I created a test setup of 10 million inserts in 3 different scenarios:
> 1. All inserts on unpublished tables
> 2. Half of the inserts on unpublished table and half on pupblished table
> 3. All inserts on published tables.
>
> The percentage improvement in the new optimized patch compared to the
> old patch is:
>
> No transactions in publication: 85.39% improvement
> Half transactions in publication: 72.70% improvement
> All transactions in publication: 48.47% improvement
>
> Attaching a graph to show the difference.
I could not find any comparisons with HEAD. Can you clarify the throughput/latency/memory
usage with HEAD?
Best regards,
Hayato Kuroda
FUJITSU LIMITED
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2025-02-20 04:16:01 | Re: Commitfest app release on Feb 17 with many improvements |
| Previous Message | Abhishek Chanda | 2025-02-20 03:36:26 | Re: Adding support for SSLKEYLOGFILE in the frontend |