Re: non-bulk inserts and tuple routing

From: Amit Langote <Langote_Amit_f8(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: non-bulk inserts and tuple routing
Date: 2018-01-25 02:11:57
Message-ID: 8f53a342-e0df-4fc9-7422-c3c3c601117c@lab.ntt.co.jp
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2018/01/24 17:25, Amit Langote wrote:
> On 2018/01/20 7:07, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 3:56 AM, Amit Langote wrote:
>>> I rebased the patches, since they started conflicting with a recently
>>> committed patch [1].
>>
>> I think that my latest commit has managed to break this pretty thoroughly.
>
> I rebased it. Here are the performance numbers again.
>
> * Uses following hash-partitioned table:
>
> create table t1 (a int, b int) partition by hash (a);
> create table t1_x partition of t1 for values with (modulus M, remainder R)
> ...
>
>
> * Non-bulk insert uses the following code (insert 100,000 rows one-by-one):
>
> do $$
> begin
> for i in 1..100000 loop
> insert into t1 values (i, i+1);
> end loop;
> end; $$;
>
> Times in milliseconds:
>
> #parts HEAD Patched
> 8 6148.313 4938.775
> 16 8882.420 6203.911
> 32 14251.072 8595.068
> 64 24465.691 13718.161
> 128 45099.435 23898.026
> 256 87307.332 44428.126
>
> * Bulk-inserting 100,000 rows using COPY:
>
> copy t1 from '/tmp/t1.csv' csv;
>
> Times in milliseconds:
>
> #parts HEAD Patched
>
> 8 466.170 446.865
> 16 445.341 444.990
> 32 443.544 487.713
> 64 460.579 435.412
> 128 469.953 422.403
> 256 463.592 431.118

Rebased again.

Thanks,
Amit

Attachment Content-Type Size
v4-0001-Teach-CopyFrom-to-use-ModifyTableState-for-tuple-.patch text/plain 3.5 KB
v4-0002-ExecFindPartition-refactoring.patch text/plain 4.4 KB
v4-0003-During-tuple-routing-initialize-per-partition-obj.patch text/plain 30.9 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jing Wang 2018-01-25 02:15:09 Re: [HACKERS] Support to COMMENT ON DATABASE CURRENT_DATABASE
Previous Message Peter Geoghegan 2018-01-25 02:05:46 Re: [HACKERS] Parallel tuplesort (for parallel B-Tree index creation)