On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 7:48 AM, Kenneth Marshall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think that the glacial speed for generating a big hash index is > the same problem that the original code faced.
Yeah sorry, I was not saying it was a new problem with the patch. Err at least not trying to :) *Both* of them had been running at 18+ (I finally killed them sometime Sunday or around +32 hours...) > It would be useful to have an equivalent test for the hash-only > index without the modified int8 hash function, since that would > be more representative of its performance. The collision rates > that I was observing in my tests of the old and new mix() functions > was about 2 * (1/10000) of what you test generated. You could just > test against the integers between 1 and 2000000. Sure but then its pretty much just a general test of patch vs no patch. i.e. How do we measure how much longer collisions take when the new patch makes things faster? That's what I was trying to measure... Though I apologize I don't think that was clearly stated anywhere... Now of course it still would be interesting... And if its only to 2,000,000 I can still use the modified int8 or just use the int4 one... Anyway Here are the numbers: create table test_hash(num int8); insert into test_hash (num) select generate_series(1, 2000000); create index test_hash_num_idx on test_hash (num); pgbench -c1 -n -t10000 -f bench_index.sql cvs head: tps = 3161.500511 v5: tps = 7248.808839 BTW Im still planning on doing a wide vs narrow test... sometime... :) -- Sent via pgsql-patches mailing list (pgsql-patches@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-patches
