RE: Delaying/avoiding BTreeTupleGetNAtts() call within _bt_compare() - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Floris Van Nee
Subject RE: Delaying/avoiding BTreeTupleGetNAtts() call within _bt_compare()
Date
Msg-id d7c19e8a6a3f4fc19c5dbcb979f0e6bf@opammb0561.comp.optiver.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Delaying/avoiding BTreeTupleGetNAtts() call within _bt_compare()  (Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>)
Responses Re: Delaying/avoiding BTreeTupleGetNAtts() call within _bt_compare()  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
List pgsql-hackers
> He reported that the problem went away with the patches applied. The
> following pgbench SELECT-only result was sent to me privately:
> 
> before:
> single:         tps = 30300.202363 (excluding connections establishing)
> all cores:      tps = 1026853.447047 (excluding connections establishing)
> 
> after:
> single:         tps = 31120.452919 (excluding connections establishing)
> all cores:      tps = 1032376.361006 (excluding connections establishing)
> 
> (Actually, he tested something slightly different -- he inlined
> _bt_compare() in his own way instead of using my 0002-*, and didn't use the
> 0003-* optimization at all.)
> 
> Apparently this was a large multi-socket machine. Those are hard to come by.
> 

I could do some tests with the patch on some larger machines. What exact tests do you propose? Are there some specific
postgresql.confsettings and pgbench initialization you recommend for this? And was the test above just running 'pgbench
-S'select-only with specific -T, -j and -c parameters?
 

-Floris


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_croak, or something like it?
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_croak, or something like it?