Re: Enabling B-Tree deduplication by default
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Enabling B-Tree deduplication by default |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+TgmoZt_dRESbg4R34G+p2x=s+P51LJbeF6oS=2bTfnatXWXA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Enabling B-Tree deduplication by default (Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>) |
Ответы |
Re: Enabling B-Tree deduplication by default
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 1:45 AM Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> wrote: > There is a regression that is just shy of 2% here, as measured in > insert benchmark "rows/sec" -- this metric goes from "62190.0" > rows/sec on master to "60986.2 rows/sec" with the patch. I think that > this is an acceptable price to pay for the benefits -- this is a small > regression for a particularly unfavorable case. Also, I suspect that > this result is still quite a bit better than what you'd get with > either InnoDB or MyRocks on the same hardware (these systems were the > original targets of the insert benchmark, which was only recently > ported over to Postgres). At least, Mark Callaghan reports getting > only about 40k rows/sec inserted in 2017 with roughly comparable > hardware and test conditions (we're both running with > synchronous_commit=off, or the equivalent). We're paying a small cost > in an area where Postgres can afford to take a hit, in order to gain a > much larger benefit in an area where Postgres is much less > competitive. How do things look in a more sympathetic case? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: