From: | Oleg Bartunov <oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su> |
---|---|
To: | Mark Cave-Ayland <mark(dot)cave-ayland(at)siriusit(dot)co(dot)uk> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru>, Pgsql Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [CFReview] Red-Black Tree |
Date: | 2010-02-04 15:30:17 |
Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.64.1002041825550.16860@sn.sai.msu.ru |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
I'm in progress of preparing this page
http://www.sai.msu.su/~megera/wiki/rbtree_test
Hope, tests are easy to reproduce.
This is slightly improved version of rbtree patch, Teodor didn't commit yet.
Random array test and real-life examples are ok, I still working on
test #1, which is quite artificial test, but still I want to understand if
the results are in accuracy of test.
Oleg
On Thu, 4 Feb 2010, Mark Cave-Ayland wrote:
> Robert Haas wrote:
>
>> Maybe we are now getting to the heart of the confusion. Mark wrote in
>> his email: "Unfortunately I was not really able to reproduce the RND
>> (teodor's) dataset, nor the random array test as the SQL used to test
>> the implementation was not present on the page above." The SQL for
>> the fixed-length tests is posted, but the SQL for the variable length
>> test is not - so Mark was just guessing on that one.
>>
>> Or am I just totally confused?
>>
>> ...Robert
>
> No, that's correct. In the "Repeat test with 100,000 identical records
> varying array length (len)" section, it's fairly easy to substitute in the
> varying values of len where len = 3, 30 and 50. As documented in my review
> email I had a guess at generating the contents of RND (teodor's) column with
> this query:
>
> select ARRAY(select generate_series(1, (random() * 100)::int)) as arand into
> arrrand from generate_series(1,100000) b;
>
> However, unlike the other figures this is quite a bit different from
> Oleg/Teodor's results which make me think this is the wrong query (3.5s v
> 9s). Obviously Robert's concern here is that it is this column that shows one
> of the largest performance decreases compared to head.
>
> I've also finished benchmarking the index creation scripts yesterday on
> Oleg's test dataset from
> http://www.sai.msu.su/~megera/postgres/files/links2.sql.gz. With
> maintenance_work_mem set to 256Mb, the times I got with the rbtree patch
> applied were:
>
>
> rbtest=# CREATE INDEX idin_rbtree_idx ON links2 USING gin (idin);
> CREATE INDEX
> Time: 1910741.352 ms
>
> rbtest=# CREATE INDEX idout_rbtree_idx ON links2 USING gin (idout);
> CREATE INDEX
> Time: 1647609.300 ms
>
>
> Without the patch applied, I ended up having to shutdown my laptop after
> around 90 mins before the first index had even been created. So there is a
> definite order of magnitude speed increase with this patch applied.
>
>
> ATB,
>
> Mark.
>
>
Regards,
Oleg
_____________________________________________________________
Oleg Bartunov, Research Scientist, Head of AstroNet (www.astronet.ru)
Sternberg Astronomical Institute, Moscow University, Russia
Internet: oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su, http://www.sai.msu.su/~megera/
phone: +007(495)939-16-83, +007(495)939-23-83
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2010-02-04 15:30:29 | Re: Shared catalogs vs pg_global tablespace |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-02-04 15:21:28 | Shared catalogs vs pg_global tablespace |