On Tue, Jun 3, 2025 at 4:25 PM Ajin Cherian <itsa...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 3, 2025 at 3:55 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > You haven't shared the exact test scenario, but I am assuming the > > above tests are for very large transactions, as you are comparing > > streaming and non-streaming modes. Can we see results with short > > transaction size (say one insert or one update, or one delete) as > > well? > > > > Attaching the scripts I used for my tests. Yes, I used transactions > with large inserts. I will redo the tests with short single inserts > and share the results here.
I redid the tests with 10k small transactions (single inserts) and the results are not great with the patch: No transactions published: Patched code performs 12.33% faster than head code. Half transactions published: Patched code is 4.97% slower than head. All transactions published: Patched code is 6.70% slower than head. Attaching the script and the bar graph. regards, Ajin Cherian Fujitsu Australia
<<attachment: pg_recv_perf_v6.zip>>
