Sorry for the late response, I just happened to see this yesterday. Running a general benchmark against the patch as Keven suggests is a good idea.
Amit, can you supply the actual values you saw when running pgbench (the 3 values for each run)? I'd like to verify that the 1% difference isn't due to some file system/OS variability (would be interested in what the stdev is for the values). Also, do you happen to have some information about the hardware you ran on? Meanwhile, I'll rerun on my end to see if I can reproduce your numbers. And I'll get a run of pgbench with minimal I/O since that can induce a lot of variability. Also, Amit, I want to thank you for all your work on this patch, it is greatly appreciated. Thanks -Jamie On Monday, December 24, 2012 7:58 PM Kevin Grittner wrote: Simon Riggs wrote: >Not really sure about the 100s of columns use case. But showing gain in useful >places in these more common cases wins my vote. Thanks for testing. Barring objections, will commit. >Do we have any results on just a plain, old stock pgbench run, with the default table definitions? That would be a reassuring complement to the other tests. Sever Configuration: The database cluster will be initialized with locales COLLATE: C CTYPE: C MESSAGES: en_US.UTF-8 MONETARY: en_US.UTF-8 NUMERIC: en_US.UTF-8 TIME: en_US.UTF-8 shared_buffers = 1GB checkpoint_segments = 255 checkpoint_timeout = 15min pgbench: transaction type: TPC-B (sort of) scaling factor: 75 query mode: simple number of clients: 8 number of threads: 8 duration: 600 s Performance: Average of 3 runs of pgbench in tps 9.3devel | with trailing null patch ----------+-------------------------- 578.9872 | 573.4980 With Regards, Amit Kapila.
