On Sun, Oct 28, 2007 at 08:06:58PM +, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Sun, 2007-10-28 at 13:05 -0500, Kenneth Marshall wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 28, 2007 at 05:27:38PM +, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > > On Sat, 2007-10-27 at 15:15 -0500, Kenneth Marshall wrote:
> > > > Its features include a better and faste
That's on Greenplum latest.
We used this query to expose CPU heavy aggregation.
The 1GB overall TPCH size is chosen to fit into the RAM of a typical
workstation/laptop with 2GB of RAM. That ensures the time is spent in the CPU
processing of the hashagg, which is what we'd like to measure here.
On Sun, 2007-10-28 at 13:19 -0700, CK Tan wrote:
> Hi, this query on TPCH 1G data gets about 5% improvement.
> select count (*) from (select l_orderkey, l_partkey, l_comment,
> count(l_tax) from lineitem group by 1, 2, 3) tmpt;
> On Oct 28, 2007, at 1:17 PM, Luke Lonergan wrote:
>
> > We just ap
Hi, this query on TPCH 1G data gets about 5% improvement.
select count (*) from (select l_orderkey, l_partkey, l_comment,
count(l_tax) from lineitem group by 1, 2, 3) tmpt;
Regards,
-cktan
On Oct 28, 2007, at 1:17 PM, Luke Lonergan wrote:
We just applied this and saw a 5 percent speedup on a
We just applied this and saw a 5 percent speedup on a hash aggregation query
with four colums in a 'group by' clause run against a single TPC-H table
(lineitem).
CK - can you post the query?
- Luke
Msg is shrt cuz m on ma treo
-Original Message-
From: Simon Riggs [mailto:[EMAIL PRO
On Sun, 2007-10-28 at 13:05 -0500, Kenneth Marshall wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 28, 2007 at 05:27:38PM +, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > On Sat, 2007-10-27 at 15:15 -0500, Kenneth Marshall wrote:
> > > Its features include a better and faster hash function.
> >
> > Looks very promising. Do you have any perfo
On Sun, Oct 28, 2007 at 05:27:38PM +, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Sat, 2007-10-27 at 15:15 -0500, Kenneth Marshall wrote:
> > Its features include a better and faster hash function.
>
> Looks very promising. Do you have any performance test results to show
> it really is faster, when compiled into
On Sat, 2007-10-27 at 15:15 -0500, Kenneth Marshall wrote:
> Its features include a better and faster hash function.
Looks very promising. Do you have any performance test results to show
it really is faster, when compiled into Postgres? Better probably needs
some definition also; in what way are
On Sat, 2007-10-27 at 23:22 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-10-26 at 10:32 +0100, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> > Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> > > /*
> > > * Look for a blocking autovacuum. There will only ever
> > > * be one, since the autovacuum workers are careful
> > > * not to operate con
