| From: | Haribabu Kommi <kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Kohei KaiGai <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | Kouhei Kaigai <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PgHacker <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: contrib/cache_scan (Re: What's needed for cache-only table scan?) |
| Date: | 2014-03-12 04:14:01 |
| Message-ID: | CAJrrPGfjcpnj+6DkWz_8ni+1CKPHH7LLgZ8k_fLGf0MKZ7U+Lw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 10:15 PM, Kohei KaiGai <kaigai(at)kaigai(dot)gr(dot)jp> wrote:
> 2014-03-06 18:17 GMT+09:00 Haribabu Kommi <kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com>:
>> I will update you later regarding the performance test results.
>>
I ran the performance test on the cache scan patch and below are the readings.
Configuration:
Shared_buffers - 512MB
cache_scan.num_blocks - 600
checkpoint_segments - 255
Machine:
OS - centos - 6.4
CPU - 4 core 2.5 GHZ
Memory - 4GB
Head patched Diff
Select - 500K 772ms 2659ms -200%
Insert - 400K 3429ms 1948ms 43% (I am
not sure how it improved in this case)
delete - 200K 2066ms 3978ms -92%
update - 200K 3915ms 5899ms -50%
This patch shown how the custom scan can be used very well but coming
to patch as It is having
some performance problem which needs to be investigated.
I attached the test script file used for the performance test.
Regards,
Hari Babu
Fujitsu Australia
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| cache_scan_test.txt | text/plain | 3.3 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Johnston | 2014-03-12 04:39:25 | Re: db_user_namespace a "temporary measure" |
| Previous Message | Jaime Casanova | 2014-03-12 04:05:41 | Re: db_user_namespace a "temporary measure" |