On Friday, January 11, 2013 11:12 PM Simon Riggs wrote: On 11 January 2013 17:30, Amit kapila <amit.kap...@huawei.com> wrote: > On Friday, January 11, 2013 7:59 PM Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Simon Riggs wrote: >> On 28 December 2012 10:21, Simon Riggs <si...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> > >>> I was also worried about the high variance in the results. Those >>> averages look rather meaningless. Which would be okay, I think, because >>> it'd mean that performance-wise the patch is a wash, > >> For larger tuple sizes (>1000 && < 1800), the performance gain will be good. >> Please refer performance results by me and Kyotaro-san in below links: > >> http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/6C0B27F7206C9E4CA54AE035729E9C383BEAAE32@szxeml509-mbx >> http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/20121228.170748.90887322.horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp
>AFAICS your tests are badly variable, but as Alvaro says, they aren't >accurate enough to tell there's a regression. >I'll assume not and carry on. > (BTW the rejection of the null bitmap patch because of a performance > regression may also need to be reconsidered). I can post detailed numbers during next commit fest. With Regards, Amit Kapila. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
