Re: Prefetch the next tuple's memory during seqscans

From: David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: sirisha chamarthi <sirichamarthi22(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, 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: 2022-11-23 13:15:46
Message-ID: CAApHDvqcGsGrm6HQzFFFK7_XX2T3Q+q++u+c0yNncGLsHb8H+w@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, 23 Nov 2022 at 21:26, sirisha chamarthi
<sirichamarthi22(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Master
> After vacuum:
> latency average = 393.880 ms
>
> Master + 0001 + 0005
> After vacuum:
> latency average = 369.591 ms

Thank you for running those again. Those results make more sense.
Would you mind also testing the count(*) query too?

David

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Simon Riggs 2022-11-23 13:27:42 Re: Hash index build performance tweak from sorting
Previous Message David Rowley 2022-11-23 13:07:05 Re: Hash index build performance tweak from sorting