On Fri, Sep 6, 2019 at 4:19 PM Tomas Vondra <tomas.von...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 04, 2019 at 07:19:47PM +0300, Sergei Kornilov wrote: > > > > ... > > > >Results: > > > > test | mode | average_tps | degradation_perc > >----------------------+----------+-------------+------------------ > > head_no_pgss | extended | 13816 | 1.000 > > patch_not_loaded | extended | 13755 | 0.996 > > head_track_none | extended | 13607 | 0.985 > > patch_track_none | extended | 13560 | 0.981 > > head_track_top | extended | 13277 | 0.961 > > patch_track_top | extended | 13189 | 0.955 > > patch_track_planning | extended | 12983 | 0.940 > > head_no_pgss | prepared | 29101 | 1.000 > > head_track_none | prepared | 28510 | 0.980 > > patch_track_none | prepared | 28481 | 0.979 > > patch_not_loaded | prepared | 28382 | 0.975 > > patch_track_planning | prepared | 28046 | 0.964 > > head_track_top | prepared | 28035 | 0.963 > > patch_track_top | prepared | 27973 | 0.961 > > head_no_pgss | simple | 16733 | 1.000 > > patch_not_loaded | simple | 16552 | 0.989 > > head_track_none | simple | 16452 | 0.983 > > patch_track_none | simple | 16365 | 0.978 > > head_track_top | simple | 15867 | 0.948 > > patch_track_top | simple | 15820 | 0.945 > > patch_track_planning | simple | 15739 | 0.941 > > > >So I found slight slowdown with track_planning = off compared to HEAD. > >Possibly just at the level of measurement error. I think this is ok. > >track_planning = on also has no dramatic impact. In my opinion proposed > >design with pgss_store call is acceptable. > > > > FWIW I've done some benchmarking on this too, with a single pgbench client > running select-only test on a tiny database, in different modes (simple, > extended, prepared). I've done that on two systems with different CPUs > (spreadsheet with results attached). > > I don't see any performance regression - there are some small variations > in both directions (say, ~1%) but that's well within the noise. So I think > the patch is fine in this regard.
Thanks a lot Sergei and Tomas! It's good to know that this patch doesn't add significant overhead.
