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

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

Reply via email to