Re: Make COPY format extendable: Extract COPY TO format implementations

On Mon, Oct 07, 2024 at 03:23:08PM -0700, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> In the benchmark, I've applied the v20 patch set and 'master' in the
> result refers to a19f83f87966. And I disabled CPU turbo boost where
> possible. Overall, v20 patch got a similar or better performance in
> both COPY FROM and COPY TO compared to master except for on MacOS.
> I'm not sure that changes made to master since the last benchmark run by
> Tomas and Suto-san might contribute to these results.

Don't think so. FWIW, I have been looking at the set of tests with
previous patch versions around v7 and v10 I have done, and did notice
a similar pattern where COPY FROM was getting slightly better for text
and binary. It did not look like only noise involved, and it was
kind of reproducible. As long as we avoid the function pointer
redirection for the per-row processing when dealing with in-core
formats, we should be fine as far as I understand. That's what the
latest patch set is doing based on a read of v21.

> I'll try to investigate the performance regression that happened on MacOS.

I don't have a good explanation for this one. Did you mount the data
folder on a tmpfs and made sure that all the workloads were
CPU-bounded?

> I think that other performance differences in my results seem to be within
> noises and could be acceptable. Of course, it would be great if others
> also could try to run benchmark tests.

Yeah. At 1~2% it could be noise, but there are reproducible 1~2%
evolutions. In the good sense here, it means.
--
Michael