| From: | "Tsunakawa, Takayuki" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | 'Peter Eisentraut' <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Imai, Yoshikazu" <imai(dot)yoshikazu(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, 'Simon Riggs' <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, David Rowley <david(dot)rowley(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | RE: Speed up transaction completion faster after many relations are accessed in a transaction |
| Date: | 2019-04-04 04:37:59 |
| Message-ID: | 0A3221C70F24FB45833433255569204D1FBEF36C@G01JPEXMBYT05 |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi Peter,
From: Peter Eisentraut [mailto:peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com]
> I did a bit of performance testing, both a plain pgbench and the
> suggested test case with 4096 partitions. I can't detect any
> performance improvements. In fact, within the noise, it tends to be
> just a bit on the slower side.
>
> So I'd like to kick it back to the patch submitter now and ask for more
> justification and performance analysis.
>
> Perhaps "speeding up planning with partitions" needs to be accepted first?
David kindly showed how to demonstrate the performance improvement on March 26, so I changed the status to needs review. I'd appreciate it if you could continue the final check.
Regards
Takayuki Tsunakawa
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Thomas Munro | 2019-04-04 04:39:14 | Re: Refactoring the checkpointer's fsync request queue |
| Previous Message | David Rowley | 2019-04-04 04:37:03 | Re: BUG #15383: Join Filter cost estimation problem in 10.5 |