Hi Harada-san,
> Hi.
>
> thank you for your answer.
>
> However, if it is a locale difference,
> I do not think there will be any significant performance difference between EDB 10.6 and EDB 11.1.
> (EDB 10.6 was also the locale C)
>
> ----
> tps (shown again)
> connections 10.6(EDB) 11.1(EDB) 11.1(BigSQL)
> 1 550.0 409.6 605.8
> 2 1103.6 753.5 1229.8
> 4 2200.4 1236.8 2539.8
> 8 4460.9 2241.5 5011.0
> 16 8862.1 2798.4 9827.0
> 32 16906.3 1896.0 18865.8
> 48 16688.8 1599.3 18794.8
> 64 16614.9 1438.6 19055.3
> 96 9492.4 1309.5 10396.9
>
> David Rowley <david.rowley@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 Jan 2019 at 18:08, Toshi Harada <harada.toshi@po.ntt-tx.co.jp> wrote:
>> > explain_bigsql_11.1.txt explain analyze log.
>> > explain_edb_10.6.txt explain analyze log.
>> > explain_edb_11.0.txt explain analyze log.
>> > select_model.sql explain analyze statement.
>> > settings_bigsql_11.1 BigSQL 11 configuration.
>> > settings_diff.txt EDB 11 and BigSQL 11 diff
>> > settings_edb_10.6 EDB 10 configuration.
>> > settings_edb_11.1 EDB 11 configuration.
>>
>> Most likely down to the collation being C on the EDB versions and
>> Japanese_Japan.932 on the bigsql one.
I think David is saying that EDB is slower because of C local, whereas
BigSQl's locale is Japanese_Japan.932. Though I thought C locale
(disabling locale) is always faster than any locale enabled.
Best regards,
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS, Inc. Japan
English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en.php
Japanese:http://www.sraoss.co.jp
