From: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Kouhei Kaigai <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Proposal: scan key push down to heap [WIP] |
Date: | 2016-11-28 09:32:37 |
Message-ID: | CAFiTN-s_ngWE-MrtPk96Dtz4goBSM=ewkM8W5maxxzSdK_rBPQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 3:00 PM, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> As promised, I have taken the performance with TPCH benchmark and
> still result are quite good. However this are less compared to older
> version (which was exposing expr ctx and slot to heap).
>
> Query Head [1] Patch3 Improvement
> Q3 36122.425 32285.608 10%
> Q4 6797 5763.871 15%
> Q10 17996.104 15878.505 11%
> Q12 12399.651 9969.489 19%
>
> [1] heap_scankey_pushdown_POC_V3.patch : attached with the mail.
I forgot to mention the configuration parameter in last mail..
TPCH-scale factor 10.
work mem 20MB
Power, 4 socket machine
Shared Buffer 1GB
--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Artur Zakirov | 2016-11-28 09:39:54 | Re: proposal: session server side variables |
Previous Message | Dilip Kumar | 2016-11-28 09:30:51 | Re: Proposal: scan key push down to heap [WIP] |