Re: pgbench: faster version of tpcb-like transaction

From: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie>
To: Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: pgbench: faster version of tpcb-like transaction
Date: 2017-08-27 00:15:45
Message-ID: CAH2-WznfoMwj6TLdfy1sXkAsbmqPWVtOBZrx47hJvYzcG3boBA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sat, Aug 26, 2017 at 4:59 PM, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I still get a 2 fold improvement, from 13668 to 27036, when both
> transactions are tested with -M prepared.
>
> I am surprised, I usually haven't seen that much difference for the default
> queries between prepared or not, to the point that I got out of the habit of
> testing with it. But back when I was testing with and without
> systematically, I did notice that it changed a lot depending on hardware and
> concurrency. And of course from version to version different bottlenecks
> come and go.

I must admit that I had a similar unpleasant surprise at one point --
"-M prepared" seems to matter *a lot* these days. That's the default
that I'd change, if any.

--
Peter Geoghegan

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Malis 2017-08-27 00:50:26 Re: Poor cost estimate with interaction between table correlation and partial indexes
Previous Message Jeff Janes 2017-08-26 23:59:14 Re: pgbench: faster version of tpcb-like transaction