From: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> |
---|---|
To: | Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)sraoss(dot)co(dot)jp> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Using COPY FREEZE in pgbench |
Date: | 2021-03-22 07:47:42 |
Message-ID: | alpine.DEB.2.22.394.2103220844370.2898300@pseudo |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hello Tatsuo-san,
> 13.2 pgbench + master branch server:
> done in 15.47 s (drop tables 0.19 s, create tables 0.01 s, client-side generate 9.07 s, vacuum 2.07 s, primary keys 4.13 s).
>
> With patch on master branch:
> done in 13.38 s (drop tables 0.19 s, create tables 0.01 s, client-side generate 9.68 s, vacuum 0.23 s, primary keys 3.27 s).
Yes, this is the kind of figures I got on my laptop.
> This time current pgbench performs much faster than I wrote (15.47 s vs.
> 70.78 s). I don't why.
Duno.
> Anyway, this time total pgbench time is reduced by 14% over all
> here. I hope people agree that the patch is worth the gain.
Yes, because (1) why not take +10% and (2) it exercises an option.
--
Fabien.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Dilip Kumar | 2021-03-22 07:50:47 | Re: [HACKERS] Custom compression methods (mac+lz4.h) |
Previous Message | houzj.fnst@fujitsu.com | 2021-03-22 07:27:59 | RE: Parallel INSERT (INTO ... SELECT ...) |