Re: WIP: Upper planner pathification

From: Teodor Sigaev <teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: WIP: Upper planner pathification
Date: 2016-03-01 15:09:16
Message-ID: 56D5B09C.5010405@sigaev.ru
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> I do not think the patch will make a lot of performance difference as-is;
> its value is more in what it will let us do later. There are a couple of
Yep, for now on my notebook (best from 5 tries):
% pgbench -i -s 3000
% pgbench -s 3000 -c 4 -j 4 -P 1 -T 60
HEAD 569 tps
patched 542 tps
% pgbench -s 3000 -c 4 -j 4 -P 1 -T 60 -S
HEAD 9500 tps
patched 9458 tps

Looks close to measurement error, but may be explained increased amount of work
for planning. Including, may be, more complicated path tree.

> this kind of optimization to chance. But the patch is big enough already,
> so that (and a lot of other things) are getting left for later.
Agree

--
Teodor Sigaev E-mail: teodor(at)sigaev(dot)ru
WWW: http://www.sigaev.ru/

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2016-03-01 15:10:12 Re: Re: In-core regression tests for replication, cascading, archiving, PITR, etc.
Previous Message Tomas Vondra 2016-03-01 15:06:47 Re: checkpointer continuous flushing - V16