| From: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>, Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Relation extension scalability |
| Date: | 2016-03-12 06:24:10 |
| Message-ID: | CAFiTN-vFRHTe_1ayhK01QJTX_oKyuj2xhbw__7NYnnhDT2815Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 8:37 AM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:
> Can you post the numbers for 1, 5, 10, 15, 25 or whatever other multiplier
> you have tried, so that it is clear that 20 is best?
I had Tried with 1, 10, 20 and 50.
1. With base code it was almost the same as base code.
2. With 10 thread data it matching with my previous group extend patch data
posted upthread
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAFiTN-tyEu+Wf0-jBc3TGfCoHdEAjNTx=WVuxpoA1vDDyST6KQ@mail.gmail.com
3. Beyond 20 with 50 I did not see any extra benefit in performance number
(compared to 20 when tested 50 with 4 byte COPY I did not tested other data
size with 50.).
--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2016-03-12 06:24:49 | Re: raw output from copy |
| Previous Message | Joel Jacobson | 2016-03-12 05:54:29 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Provide much better wait information in pg_stat_activity. |