Re: tableam vs. TOAST

On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 2:19 AM Prabhat Sahu
<prabhat.sahu@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> I have tested the TOAST patches(v3) with different storage options like(MAIN, EXTERNAL, EXTENDED, etc.), and
> combinations of compression and out-of-line storage options.
> I have used a few dummy tables with various tuple count say 10k, 20k, 40k, etc. with different column lengths.
> Used manual CHECKPOINT option with (checkpoint_timeout = 1d, max_wal_size = 10GB) before the test to avoid performance fluctuations,
> and calculated the results as a median value of a few consecutive test executions.

Thanks for testing.

> All the observation looks good to me,
> except for the "Test1" for SCC UPDATE with tuple count(10K/20K), for SCC INSERT with tuple count(40K)  there was a slightly increse in time taken
> incase of "with patch" result. For a better observation, I also have ran the same "Test 1" for higher tuple count(i.e. 80K), and it also looks fine.

Did you run each test just once?  How stable are the results?