Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Tom Lane wrote:
Has anyone bothered to measure the overhead added by having to mask to
fetch or store the natts value? This is not a zero-cost improvement.
Tom, how should this be tested? I assume some loop of the same query
over and over again.
I'd be satisfied by a demonstration of no meaningful difference in
pgbench numbers.
I ran pgbench on CVS checkout taken before the patch was applied, and I
couldn't measure a difference.
I got 1329-1340 TPM from three runs both with and without the patch. The
tests were run on my laptop, with scaling factor 10, using "pgbench
postgres -t 100000 -v", with fsync and full_page_writes disabled to make
it CPU bound, while observing top to confirm that CPU usage was 100%
during the test.
I think that's enough performance testing for this patch.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
