Re: 8.3RC2 vs 8.2.6 testing results - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: 8.3RC2 vs 8.2.6 testing results
Date
Msg-id 11517.1201576408@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to 8.3RC2 vs 8.2.6 testing results  (Vlad <marchenko@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: 8.3RC2 vs 8.2.6 testing results  (Greg Smith <gsmith@gregsmith.com>)
Re: 8.3RC2 vs 8.2.6 testing results  ("Marko Kreen" <markokr@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-general
Vlad <marchenko@gmail.com> writes:
> 2. We ran several tests and found 8.3 generally 10% slower than 8.2.6.

The particular case you are showing here seems to be all about the speed
of hash aggregation --- at least the time differential is mostly in the
HashAggregate step.  What is the data type of a_id?  I speculate that
you're noticing the slightly slower/more complicated hash function that
8.3 uses for integers.  On a case where the data was well distributed
you'd not see any countervailing efficiency gain from those extra
cycles.

            regards, tom lane

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: using = in a function
Next
From: Greg Smith
Date:
Subject: Re: 8.3RC2 vs 8.2.6 testing results