| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | CK Tan <cktan(at)vitessedata(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Vitesse DB call for testing |
| Date: | 2014-10-17 17:12:27 |
| Message-ID: | 2905.1413565947@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
CK Tan <cktan(at)vitessedata(dot)com> writes:
> The bigint sum,avg,count case in the example you tried has some optimization. We use int128 to accumulate the bigint instead of numeric in pg. Hence the big speed up. Try the same query on int4 for the improvement where both pg and vitessedb are using int4 in the execution.
Well, that's pretty much cheating: it's too hard to disentangle what's
coming from JIT vs what's coming from using a different accumulator
datatype. If we wanted to depend on having int128 available we could
get that speedup with a couple hours' work.
But what exactly are you "compiling" here? I trust not the actual data
accesses; that seems far too complicated to try to inline.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Stark | 2014-10-17 17:25:45 | Re: Yet another abort-early plan disaster on 9.3 |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2014-10-17 17:08:31 | Re: [PATCH] add ssl_protocols configuration option |