> On 15 Jul 2024, at 12:52, Stepan Neretin <sncfmgg@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I run benchmark with my patches: > ./pgbench -c 10 -j2 -t1000 -d postgres > > pgbench (18devel) > starting vacuum...end. > transaction type: <builtin: TPC-B (sort of)> > scaling factor: 10 > query mode: simple > number of clients: 10 > number of threads: 2 > maximum number of tries: 1 > number of transactions per client: 1000 > number of transactions actually processed: 10000/10000 > number of failed transactions: 0 (0.000%) > latency average = 1.609 ms > initial connection time = 24.080 ms > tps = 6214.244789 (without initial connection time) > > and without: > ./pgbench -c 10 -j2 -t1000 -d postgres > > pgbench (18devel) > starting vacuum...end. > transaction type: <builtin: TPC-B (sort of)> > scaling factor: 10 > query mode: simple > number of clients: 10 > number of threads: 2 > maximum number of tries: 1 > number of transactions per client: 1000 > number of transactions actually processed: 10000/10000 > number of failed transactions: 0 (0.000%) > latency average = 1.731 ms > initial connection time = 15.177 ms > tps = 5776.173285 (without initial connection time) > > tps with my patches increase. What do you think?
Hi Stepan!
Thank you for implementing specialized sorting and doing this benchmarks. I believe it's a possible direction for good improvement. However, I doubt in correctness of your benchmarks. Increasing TPC-B performance from 5776 TPS to 6214 TPS seems too good to be true.
Best regards, Andrey Borodin.
Yes... I agree.. Very strange.. I restarted the tpsmeasurement and see this:
