| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Konstantin Knizhnik <k(dot)knizhnik(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Postgres with pthread |
| Date: | 2017-12-06 17:13:12 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZ5OtwkfzKZojQN1mY1K-2K6aqds7re1C=V2d=p27zPtQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 11:53 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> barely a 50% speedup.
I think that's an awfully strange choice of adverb. This is, by its
authors own admission, a rough cut at this, probably with very little
of the optimization that could ultimately done, and it's already
buying 50% on some test cases? That sounds phenomenally good to me.
A 50% speedup is huge, and chances are that it can be made quite a bit
better with more work, or that it already is quite a bit better with
the right test case.
TBH, based on previous discussion, I expected this to initially be
*slower* but still worthwhile in the long run because of optimizations
that it would let us do eventually with parallel query and other
things. If it's this much faster out of the gate, that's really
exciting.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2017-12-06 17:17:37 | Re: Postgres with pthread |
| Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2017-12-06 17:08:15 | Re: Postgres with pthread |