| From: | Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> | 
|---|---|
| To: | Corey Huinker <corey(dot)huinker(at)gmail(dot)com> | 
| Cc: | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com, amitdkhan(dot)pg(at)gmail(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org | 
| Subject: | Re: asynchronous execution | 
| Date: | 2017-03-14 01:28:36 | 
| Message-ID: | e7dc8128-f32b-ff9a-870e-f1117b8e4fa6@lab.ntt.co.jp | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers | 
On 2017/03/14 10:08, Corey Huinker wrote:
>> I don't think the plan itself will change as a result of applying this
>> patch. You might however be able to observe some performance improvement.
> 
> I could see no performance improvement, even with 16 separate queries
> combined with UNION ALL. Query performance was always with +/- 10% of a 9.6
> instance given the same script. I must be missing something.
Hmm, maybe I'm missing something too.
Anyway, here is an older message on this thread from Horiguchi-san where
he shared some of the test cases that this patch improves performance for:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20161018.103051.30820907.horiguchi.kyotaro%40lab.ntt.co.jp
From that message:
<quote>
I measured performance and had the following result.
t0  - SELECT sum(a) FROM <local single table>;
pl  - SELECT sum(a) FROM <4 local children>;
pf0 - SELECT sum(a) FROM <4 foreign children on single connection>;
pf1 - SELECT sum(a) FROM <4 foreign children on dedicate connections>;
The result is written as "time<ms> (std dev <ms>)"
sync
  t0: 3820.33 (  1.88)
  pl: 1608.59 ( 12.06)
 pf0: 7928.29 ( 46.58)
 pf1: 8023.16 ( 26.43)
async
  t0: 3806.31 (  4.49)    0.4% faster (should be error)
  pl: 1629.17 (  0.29)    1.3% slower
 pf0: 6447.07 ( 25.19)   18.7% faster
 pf1: 1876.80 ( 47.13)   76.6% faster
</quote>
IIUC, pf0 and pf1 is the same test case (all 4 foreign tables target the
same server) measured with different implementations of the patch.
Thanks,
Amit
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Haribabu Kommi | 2017-03-14 01:34:12 | Re: [REVIEW] macaddr 64 bit (EUI-64) datatype support | 
| Previous Message | Haribabu Kommi | 2017-03-14 01:27:36 | Re: [REVIEW] macaddr 64 bit (EUI-64) datatype support |