On Wed, 2007-04-04 at 10:23 -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:
> > - a hash join
>
> This is where I got stuck.
>
> * If it's one big ( > NBuffers/2 ) table and one small table, the small
> table will only serve to occupy some shared_buffers (right?
> * If it's two big tables, a join would be a major opera
On Wed, 2007-04-04 at 10:40 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > That makes no sense to me, so it's probably a fluke (by which I mean
> > some other activity on the system, perhaps swapping some large
> > applications). The second two tests are consistent with all the other
> > numbers I got, but the firs
On Tue, 2007-04-03 at 10:37 -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:
> > > The primary aspect of my patch, the Synchronized Scanning, performed
> > > great though. Even the CFQ scheduler, that does not appear to properly
> > > read ahead, performed substantially better than plain 8.2.3. And even
> > > better, Simo
On Tue, 2007-04-03 at 10:01 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-04-02 at 16:14 -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:
>
> > The results are very positive and quite conclusive.
>
> Can we show some summary results?
I should be able to make some graphs today.
> I'm happy that the scans stay together all t
On Mon, 2007-04-02 at 21:38 -0700, Luke Lonergan wrote:
> Jeff,
>
> Your conclusions sound great - can you perhaps put the timings in a column
> in your table so we can confirm them?
>
I just threw the logs up, which contain the timings involved. I will try
to make graphs out of them, but the da
On Mon, 2007-04-02 at 16:14 -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:
> The results are very positive and quite conclusive.
Can we show some summary results?
I'm happy that the scans stay together all the way around, even handling
the max-> 0 blockid transition well. So definite winner for me.
> However, the "s
Jeff,
Your conclusions sound great - can you perhaps put the timings in a column
in your table so we can confirm them?
- Luke
On 4/2/07 4:14 PM, "Jeff Davis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I posted some fairly detailed benchmark results for my Synchronized Scan
> patch and it's interactions with
I posted some fairly detailed benchmark results for my Synchronized Scan
patch and it's interactions with Simon Riggs' Recycle Buffers patch
here:
http://j-davis.com/postgresql/patch15-results.html
The results are in the form of log files that contain lots of useful
debugging info:
* log_executo
