From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Guillaume Smet" <guillaume(dot)smet(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Greg Smith" <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: 8.3devel slower than 8.2 under read-only load |
Date: | 2007-11-24 01:52:43 |
Message-ID: | 24180.1195869163@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
I wrote:
> I don't think you need to --- the "read-only transaction" case built
> into pgbench is probably an equivalent test. What it looks like to
> me is that the EquivalenceClass mechanism has added a little bit of
> overhead, which isn't actually buying much of anything in these
> trivial cases. I'll look at whether it can be short-circuited.
I've knocked down a few bits of low-hanging fruit. What I see with
this evening's CVS HEAD is that 8.3 is roughly on par with 8.2 for the
"pgbench -S -c 10" case, if you compare them with stats collection
turned off. Turning stats collection on slows 8.3 by a percent or so
--- but 8.2 takes a very much larger hit with stats collection on, about
25%. So I'm satisfied with these results, particularly in view of the
fact that what we're measuring is certainly the stupidest, least
efficient way to use Postgres.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jonah H. Harris | 2007-11-24 04:43:39 | Re: 8.3devel slower than 8.2 under read-only load |
Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2007-11-23 21:54:39 | Re: [HACKERS] Transaction question |