On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 9:25 AM Mithun Cy <mithun.cy@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 3:54 AM John Naylor <john.naylor@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 10:50 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Thanks, Mithun for performance testing, it really helps us to choose
> > > the right strategy here. Once John provides next version, it would be
> > > good to see the results of regular pgbench (read-write) runs (say at
> > > 50 and 300 scale factor) and the results of large copy. I don't think
> > > there will be any problem, but we should just double check that.
> >
> > Attached is v12 using the alternating-page strategy. I've updated the
> > comments and README as needed. In addition, I've
>
>
> execution time in ms. (scale factor indicates size of pgbench_accounts)
> scale factor v12-patch base patch % diff
> 300 77166.407 77862.041 -0.8934186557
> 50 13329.233 13284.583 0.3361038882
>
> So for large table tests do not show any considerable performance variance from base code!
>
I think with these results, we can conclude this patch doesn't seem to
have any noticeable regression for all the tests we have done, right?
Thanks a lot for doing various performance tests.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
