Re: Postgres with pthread
От | Adam Brusselback |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Postgres with pthread |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAMjNa7cHrtXRxJM50KnRBrOUhp8JO8PfYF-1b3Qpi0HQmJv_mw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Postgres with pthread (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Here it is formatted a little better.

So a little over 50% performance improvement for a couple of the test cases.
On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 11:53 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Konstantin Knizhnik <k.knizhnik@postgrespro.ru> writes:
> Below are some results (1000xTPS) of select-only (-S) pgbench with scale
> 100 at my desktop with quad-core i7-4770 3.40GHz and 16Gb of RAM:
> Connections Vanilla/default Vanilla/prepared
> pthreads/defaultpthreads/prepared
> 10 100 191
> 106 207
> 100 67 131
> 105 168
> 1000 41 65
> 55 102
This table is so mangled that I'm not very sure what it's saying.
Maybe you should have made it an attachment?
However, if I guess at which numbers are supposed to be what,
it looks like even the best case is barely a 50% speedup.
That would be worth pursuing if it were reasonably low-hanging
fruit, but converting PG to threads seems very far from being that.
I think you've done us a very substantial service by pursuing
this far enough to get some quantifiable performance results.
But now that we have some results in hand, I think we're best
off sticking with the architecture we've got.
regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: