On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 30 December 2011 19:46, Merlin Moncure <mmonc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 8:03 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pe...@2ndquadrant.com> 
>> wrote:
>>> * A spreadsheet that shows the results of re-running my earlier heap
>>> tuple sorting benchmark with this new patch. The improvement in the
>>> query that orders by 2 columns is all that is pertinent there, when
>>> considering the value of (1) and the sense in standing still for
>>> controversy A.
>>> * A spreadsheet that shows the difference in index creation times,
>>> generated with the help of the new python script.
>> very nice.  let me save everyone the effort of opening his
>> spreadsheets (which by the way both show 'HEAD/unoptimized' --
>> probably not what you meant): he's showing a consistent ~50% reduction
>> in running time of sort driven queries -- that's money.
> Sorry, I think you may have misinterpreted the results, which is my
> fault - I introduced a formatting error. In the case of the "btree"
> spreadsheet, the first query on each sheet should be "create index
> test on orderlines (prod_id);", and not "select * from orderlines
> order by prod_id". The idea is to compare the results from each set of
> binaries across pages of the spreadsheet (note that there are two
> tabs). You should not compare anything between the two spreadsheets.
> Revised btree results attached. The heap results that I posted do not
> have any formatting errors, so they have not been revised.

right-- my bad. still, that's 31-37% -- still pretty nice.


Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to