Re: [pgsql-advocacy] 8.2 -> 8.3 performance numbers
От | Merlin Moncure |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [pgsql-advocacy] 8.2 -> 8.3 performance numbers |
Дата | |
Msg-id | b42b73150707250709g3a08af06o5d96810a6f1b82d6@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [pgsql-advocacy] 8.2 -> 8.3 performance numbers ("Simon Riggs" <simon@2ndquadrant.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [pgsql-advocacy] 8.2 -> 8.3 performance numbers
|
Список | pgsql-performance |
On 7/25/07, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On Fri, 2007-07-20 at 10:03 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: > > Jim, > > > > > Has anyone benchmarked HEAD against 8.2? I'd like some numbers to use in > > > my OSCon lightning talk. Numbers for both with and without HOT would be > > > even better (I know we've got HOT-specific benchmarks, but I want > > > complete 8.2 -> 8.3 numbers). > > > > We've done it on TPCE, which is a hard benchmark for PostgreSQL. On > > that it's +9% without HOT and +13% with HOT. I think SpecJ would show a > > greater difference, but we're still focussed on benchmarks we can > > publish (i.e. 8.2.4) right now. > > Josh, > > Should you get the chance I would appreciate a comparative test for > TPC-E. > > 1. Normal TPC-E versus > 2. TPC-E with all FKs against Fixed tables replaced with CHECK( col IN > (VALUES(x,x,x,...))) constraints on the referencing tables. > > I have reasonable evidence that Referential Integrity is the major > performance bottleneck and would like some objective evidence that this > is the case. > > No rush, since it will be an 8.4 thing to discuss and improve this > substantially in any of the ways I envisage. just a small 'me too' here, the RI penalty seems higher than it should be...especially when the foreign key table is very small, and I can see how this would impact benchmarks. merlin
В списке pgsql-performance по дате отправления: