Hi Aleksander, On 2017/03/07 0:22, Aleksander Alekseev wrote: > Hello. > > OK, here is a patch. > > Benchmark, before: > > ``` > number of transactions actually processed: 1823 > latency average = 1153.495 ms > latency stddev = 154.366 ms > tps = 6.061104 (including connections establishing) > tps = 6.061211 (excluding connections establishing) > ``` > > Benchmark, after: > > ``` > number of transactions actually processed: 2462 > latency average = 853.862 ms > latency stddev = 112.270 ms > tps = 8.191861 (including connections establishing) > tps = 8.192028 (excluding connections establishing) > ``` > > +35% TPS, just as expected. Feel free to run your own benchmarks on > different datasets and workloads. `perf top` shows that first bottleneck > is completely eliminated.
That seems like a good gain. > I did nothing about the second bottleneck > since as Amit mentioned partition-pruning should solve this anyway and > apparently any micro-optimizations don't worth an effort. Sorry, I didn't mean to dissuade you from trying those micro-optimizations. If general inheritance cases can benefit from it (which, until we have a different method, will be used by partitioned tables as well), I think we should try it. Thanks, Amit -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers