On Tue, Jul 16, 2024 at 1:47 AM Andrey M. Borodin <x4...@yandex-team.ru> wrote:
> > > > On 15 Jul 2024, at 12:52, Stepan Neretin <sncf...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > I run benchmark with my patches: > > ./pgbench -c 10 -j2 -t1000 -d postgres > > > > pgbench (18devel) > > starting vacuum...end. > > transaction type: <builtin: TPC-B (sort of)> > > scaling factor: 10 > > query mode: simple > > number of clients: 10 > > number of threads: 2 > > maximum number of tries: 1 > > number of transactions per client: 1000 > > number of transactions actually processed: 10000/10000 > > number of failed transactions: 0 (0.000%) > > latency average = 1.609 ms > > initial connection time = 24.080 ms > > tps = 6214.244789 (without initial connection time) > > > > and without: > > ./pgbench -c 10 -j2 -t1000 -d postgres > > > > pgbench (18devel) > > starting vacuum...end. > > transaction type: <builtin: TPC-B (sort of)> > > scaling factor: 10 > > query mode: simple > > number of clients: 10 > > number of threads: 2 > > maximum number of tries: 1 > > number of transactions per client: 1000 > > number of transactions actually processed: 10000/10000 > > number of failed transactions: 0 (0.000%) > > latency average = 1.731 ms > > initial connection time = 15.177 ms > > tps = 5776.173285 (without initial connection time) > > > > tps with my patches increase. What do you think? > > > Hi Stepan! > > Thank you for implementing specialized sorting and doing this benchmarks. > I believe it's a possible direction for good improvement. > However, I doubt in correctness of your benchmarks. > Increasing TPC-B performance from 5776 TPS to 6214 TPS seems too good to > be true. > > > Best regards, Andrey Borodin. Yes... I agree.. Very strange.. I restarted the tps measurement and see this: tps = 14291.893460 (without initial connection time) not patched tps = 14669.624075 (without initial connection time) patched What do you think about these measurements? Best regards, Stepan Neretin.
