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
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 |