|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|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
> 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
> 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.
|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|