| From: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Prefetch the next tuple's memory during seqscans |
| Date: | 2022-11-24 09:25:09 |
| Message-ID: | CAApHDvomrfE0e+ct2gj+c=1z5J+8V2HNo4YOjARfN=PuyaTD=g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 23 Nov 2022 at 10:58, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> My current thoughts are that it might be best to go with 0005 to start
> with. I know Melanie is working on making some changes in this area,
> so perhaps it's best to leave 0002 until that work is complete.
I tried running TPC-H @ scale 5 with master (@d09dbeb9) vs master +
0001 + 0005 patch. The results look quite promising. Query 15 seems
to run 15% faster and overall it's 4.23% faster.
Full results are attached.
David
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| tpch_results.txt | text/plain | 571 bytes |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2022-11-24 09:49:48 | Re: Fix for visibility check on 14.5 fails on tpcc with high concurrency |
| Previous Message | Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais | 2022-11-24 09:22:06 | Re: Transparent column encryption |