On 22 Jun. 2017 07:40, "Andres Freund" <and...@anarazel.de> wrote:
Advertising
On 2017-06-20 17:51:23 +0200, Daniel Verite wrote: > Andres Freund wrote: > > > FWIW, I still think this needs a pgbench or similar example integration, > > so we can actually properly measure the benefits. > > Here's an updated version of the patch I made during review, > adding \beginbatch and \endbatch to pgbench. > The performance improvement appears clearly > with a custom script of this kind: > \beginbatch > UPDATE pgbench_branches SET bbalance = bbalance + 1 WHERE bid = 0; > ..above repeated 1000 times... > \endbatch > > versus the same with a BEGIN; END; pair instead of \beginbatch \endbatch > > On localhost on my desktop I tend to see a 30% difference in favor > of the batch mode with that kind of test. > On slower networks there are much bigger differences. This is seriously impressive. Just using the normal pgbench mixed workload, wrapping a whole transaction into a batch *doubles* the throughput. And that's locally over a unix socket - the gain over actual network will be larger. In my original tests I got over a 300x improvement on WAN :) . I should check if the same applies with pgbench.
