On 2018/01/24 17:25, Amit Langote wrote:
> On 2018/01/20 7:07, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 3:56 AM, Amit Langote wrote:
>>> I rebased the patches, since they started conflicting with a recently
>>> committed patch [1].
>>
>> I think that my latest commit has managed to break this pretty thoroughly.
>
> I rebased it. Here are the performance numbers again.
>
> * Uses following hash-partitioned table:
>
> create table t1 (a int, b int) partition by hash (a);
> create table t1_x partition of t1 for values with (modulus M, remainder R)
> ...
>
>
> * Non-bulk insert uses the following code (insert 100,000 rows one-by-one):
>
> do $$
> begin
> for i in 1..100000 loop
> insert into t1 values (i, i+1);
> end loop;
> end; $$;
>
> Times in milliseconds:
>
> #parts HEAD Patched
> 8 6148.313 4938.775
> 16 8882.420 6203.911
> 32 14251.072 8595.068
> 64 24465.691 13718.161
> 128 45099.435 23898.026
> 256 87307.332 44428.126
>
> * Bulk-inserting 100,000 rows using COPY:
>
> copy t1 from '/tmp/t1.csv' csv;
>
> Times in milliseconds:
>
> #parts HEAD Patched
>
> 8 466.170 446.865
> 16 445.341 444.990
> 32 443.544 487.713
> 64 460.579 435.412
> 128 469.953 422.403
> 256 463.592 431.118
Rebased again.
Thanks,
Amit
