| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(dot)riggs(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Hash index build performance tweak from sorting |
| Date: | 2022-09-21 11:43:15 |
| Message-ID: | CANbhV-E-j6vfb=iVQOpR+yPvbOffEUTWme60f95DUfEJCUeUmg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 21 Sept 2022 at 02:32, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2 Aug 2022 at 03:37, Simon Riggs <simon(dot)riggs(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> > Using the above test case, I'm getting a further 4-7% improvement on
> > already committed code with the attached patch, which follows your
> > proposal.
> >
> > The patch passes info via a state object, useful to avoid API churn in
> > later patches.
>
> Hi Simon,
>
> I took this patch for a spin and saw a 2.5% performance increase using
> the random INT test that Tom posted. The index took an average of
> 7227.47 milliseconds on master and 7045.05 with the patch applied.
Hi David,
Thanks for tests and review. I'm just jumping on a plane, so may not
respond in detail until next Mon.
--
Simon Riggs http://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Junwang Zhao | 2022-09-21 11:45:01 | [PATCH] polish the error message of creating proc |
| Previous Message | Bharath Rupireddy | 2022-09-21 11:40:39 | Re: Refactor backup related code (was: Is it correct to say, "invalid data in file \"%s\"", BACKUP_LABEL_FILE in do_pg_backup_stop?) |