On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 07:25:38AM -0500, Rod Taylor wrote: > On Sat, 2003-11-01 at 20:58, Mark Wong wrote: > > I don't remember making a conscious decision between the number and integer > > database type. Is that a significant oversight on my part? > > Numerics do exact math with support for arbitrary numbers. Unlike > Oracle, PostgreSQL does not retype NUMBER to a faster type internally > (like int). > > You may find a good sized improvement (possibly as much as 15%) by > switching to integer as it will both reduce CPU load and storage > requirements.
I've changed all the numerics to integers and reals, where it was appropriate to maintain the precision specificed in the TPC-C spec. Here's a comparison of results: http://developer.osdl.org/markw/dbt2-pgsql/214/ - using all numerics - metric 1831.78 http://developer.osdl.org/markw/dbt2-pgsql/217/ - integers and reals where appropriate - metric 1972.94 Looks like I see about an 8% improvement in the metric with this instance. A definite decrease in user time in the processor utilization chart, which I presume is attributed to the 70% decrease in ticks to SearchCatCache in the database as reported by oprofile. Can anyone explain that one? Mark ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
