Re: pglz performance

From: Andrey Borodin <x4mmm(at)yandex-team(dot)ru>
To: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Vladimir Leskov <vladimirlesk(at)yandex-team(dot)ru>
Subject: Re: pglz performance
Date: 2019-05-17 10:59:58
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

> 17 мая 2019 г., в 6:44, Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> написал(а):
> That's nice.
> From the numbers you are presenting here, all of them are much better
> than the original, and there is not much difference between any of the
> patched versions. Having a 20%~30% improvement with a patch is very
> nice.
> After that comes the simplicity and the future maintainability of what
> is proposed. I am not much into accepting a patch which has a 1%~2%
> impact for some hardwares and makes pglz much more complex and harder
> to understand. But I am really eager to see a patch with at least a
> 10% improvement which remains simple, even more if it simplifies the
> logic used in pglz.

Here are patches for both winning versions. I'll place them on CF.
My gut feeling is pglz_decompress_hacked8 should be better, but on most architectures benchmarks show opposite.

Best regards, Andrey Borodin.

Attachment Content-Type Size
pglz_decompress_hacked8.diff application/octet-stream 1.0 KB
pglz_decompress_hacked.diff application/octet-stream 882 bytes

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Etsuro Fujita 2019-05-17 11:31:36 postgres_fdw: oddity in costing presorted foreign scans with local stats
Previous Message Amit Langote 2019-05-17 10:56:55 Re: PostgreSQL 12: Feature Highlights