| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Gather performance analysis |
| Date: | 2021-10-14 20:18:29 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZdrP7pUudtaa-7cmau4XhquqHvuarBnH-eDgzc58BMCQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 10:14 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Thanks, yeah now it looks in line with other results.
Since it seems there are no remaining concerns here, and we have
benchmarking results showing that the patch helps, I have committed
the patch.
I wonder whether the new code in shm_mq_send_bytes() should guard
against calling shm_mq_inc_bytes_written() with a second argument of
0, or alternatively whether shm_mq_inc_bytes_written() should have an
internal defense against that. It might save some writes to shared
memory, but it would also add a branch, which isn't free, either.
I also think that, as a followup action item, we need to reassess
parallel_tuple_cost.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2021-10-14 20:34:11 | Re: [RFC] building postgres with meson |
| Previous Message | Gavin Flower | 2021-10-14 20:01:59 | Re: [PATCH] Proposal for HIDDEN/INVISIBLE column |