On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 11:45 AM Imai Yoshikazu <yoshikazu_i...@live.jp> wrote: > On 2019/03/31 1:06, Amit Langote wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 12:11 AM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > >> I am curious as to why there seems to be more degradation > >> for hash cases, as per Yoshikazu-san's results in > >> <0F97FA9ABBDBE54F91744A9B37151A512BAC60@g01jpexmbkw24>, > >> but whatever's accounting for the difference probably > >> is not that. > > > > I suspected it may have been the lack of bitmapsets, but maybe only > > Imai-san could've confirmed that by applying the live_parts patch too. > > Yeah, I forgot to applying live_parts patch. I did same test again which > I did for hash before. > (BTW, thanks for committing speeding up patches!)
Thanks a lot for committing, Tom. I wish you had listed yourself as an author though. I will send the patch for get_relation_constraints() mentioned upthread tomorrow. > [HEAD(428b260)] > nparts TPS > ====== ===== > 2: 13134 (13240, 13290, 13071, 13172, 12896) > 1024: 12627 (12489, 12635, 12716, 12732, 12562) > 8192: 10289 (10216, 10265, 10171, 10278, 10514) > > [HEAD(428b260) + live_parts.diff] > nparts TPS > ====== ===== > 2: 13277 (13112, 13290, 13241, 13360, 13382) > 1024: 12821 (12930, 12849, 12909, 12700, 12716) > 8192: 11102 (11134, 11158, 11114, 10997, 11109) > > > Degradations of performance are below. > > > My test results from above (with live_parts, HEAD(428b260) + > live_parts.diff) > nparts live_parts HEAD > ====== ========== ==== > 2: 13277 13134 > 1024: 12821 12627 > 8192: 11102 10289 > > 11102/13277 = 83.6 % > > > Amit-san's test results (with live_parts) > > nparts v38 HEAD > > ====== ==== ==== > > 2 2971 2969 > > 8 2980 1949 > > 32 2955 733 > > 128 2946 145 > > 512 2924 11 > > 1024 2986 3 > > 4096 2702 0 > > 8192 2531 OOM > > 2531/2971 = 85.2 % > > > My test results I posted before (without live_parts) > > nparts v38 HEAD > > ====== ==== ==== > > 0: 10538 10487 > > 2: 6942 7028 > > 4: 7043 5645 > > 8: 6981 3954 > > 16: 6932 2440 > > 32: 6897 1243 > > 64: 6897 309 > > 128: 6753 120 > > 256: 6727 46 > > 512: 6708 12 > > 1024: 6063 3 > > 2048: 5894 1 > > 4096: 5374 OOM > > 8192: 4572 OOM > > 4572/6942 = 65.9 % > > > Certainly, using bitmapset contributes to the performance when scanning > one partition(few partitions) from large partitions. Thanks Imai-san for testing. Regards, Amit
