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: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | 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 |