From: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] Last infomask bit |
Date: | 2007-01-11 10:56:50 |
Message-ID: | 45A617F2.6070402@enterprisedb.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>> Has anyone bothered to measure the overhead added by having to mask to
>>> fetch or store the natts value? This is not a zero-cost improvement.
>
>> Tom, how should this be tested? I assume some loop of the same query
>> over and over again.
>
> I'd be satisfied by a demonstration of no meaningful difference in
> pgbench numbers.
I ran pgbench on CVS checkout taken before the patch was applied, and I
couldn't measure a difference.
I got 1329-1340 TPM from three runs both with and without the patch. The
tests were run on my laptop, with scaling factor 10, using "pgbench
postgres -t 100000 -v", with fsync and full_page_writes disabled to make
it CPU bound, while observing top to confirm that CPU usage was 100%
during the test.
I think that's enough performance testing for this patch.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Gurjeet Singh | 2007-01-11 11:17:16 | Re: SPAR Simple PostgreSQL AddOn Replication System |
Previous Message | Gurjeet Singh | 2007-01-11 10:36:03 | Re: SPAR Simple PostgreSQL AddOn Replication System |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2007-01-11 11:32:12 | Re: [HACKERS] [PATCHES] wal_checksum = on (default) | off |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2007-01-11 10:20:38 | Re: Remove of .SECONDARY from SGML Makefile |