|From:||Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>|
|To:||Konstantin Knizhnik <k(dot)knizhnik(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>|
|Cc:||PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>|
|Subject:||Re: Postgres with pthread|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
Konstantin Knizhnik <k(dot)knizhnik(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> writes:
> Below are some results (1000xTPS) of select-only (-S) pgbench with scale
> 100 at my desktop with quad-core i7-4770 3.40GHz and 16Gb of RAM:
> Connections Vanilla/default Vanilla/prepared
> 10 100 191
> 106 207
> 100 67 131
> 105 168
> 1000 41 65
> 55 102
This table is so mangled that I'm not very sure what it's saying.
Maybe you should have made it an attachment?
However, if I guess at which numbers are supposed to be what,
it looks like even the best case is barely a 50% speedup.
That would be worth pursuing if it were reasonably low-hanging
fruit, but converting PG to threads seems very far from being that.
I think you've done us a very substantial service by pursuing
this far enough to get some quantifiable performance results.
But now that we have some results in hand, I think we're best
off sticking with the architecture we've got.
regards, tom lane
|Next Message||Andrzej Barszcz||2017-12-06 16:53:44||views|
|Previous Message||Konstantin Knizhnik||2017-12-06 16:40:00||Postgres with pthread|