Re: Vitesse DB call for testing
От | Merlin Moncure |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Vitesse DB call for testing |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAHyXU0ywWYAApjEpGiRcf=LwWZO4T9Ps5jF+jaZCOSRCFrGsXA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Vitesse DB call for testing (Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 11:08 AM, Feng Tian <ftian@vitessedata.com> wrote: >> I agree using that using int128 in stock postgres will speed up things too. >> On the other hand, that is only one part of the equation. For example, if >> you look at TPCH Q1, the int128 "cheating" does not kick in at all, but we >> are 8x faster. > > I'm curious about how the numbers look when stock Postgres is built > with the same page size as your fork. You didn't mention whether or > not your Postgres numbers came from a standard build. I downloaded the 8kb varant. vitesse (median of 3): postgres=# select count(*), sum(i*i), avg(i) from t; count │ sum │ avg ─────────┼────────────────────┼─────────────────────1000000 │ 333333833333500000 │ 500000.500000000000 (1 row) Time: 39.197 ms stock (median of 3): postgres=# select count(*), sum(i*i), avg(i) from t; count │ sum │ avg ─────────┼────────────────────┼─────────────────────1000000 │ 333333833333500000 │ 500000.500000000000 (1 row) Time: 667.362 ms (stock int4 ops) postgres=# select sum(1::int4) from t; sum ─────────1000000 (1 row) Time: 75.265 ms What I'm wondering is how complex the hooks are that tie the technology in. Unless a bsd licensed patch materializes, the conversation (beyond the intitial wow! factor) should probably focus on a possible integration points and/or implementation of technology into core in a general way. merlin
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: