On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 30 December 2011 19:46, Merlin Moncure <mmonc...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 8:03 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pe...@2ndquadrant.com> >> wrote: >>> * A spreadsheet that shows the results of re-running my earlier heap >>> tuple sorting benchmark with this new patch. The improvement in the >>> query that orders by 2 columns is all that is pertinent there, when >>> considering the value of (1) and the sense in standing still for >>> controversy A. >>> >>> * A spreadsheet that shows the difference in index creation times, >>> generated with the help of the new python script. >> >> very nice. let me save everyone the effort of opening his >> spreadsheets (which by the way both show 'HEAD/unoptimized' -- >> probably not what you meant): he's showing a consistent ~50% reduction >> in running time of sort driven queries -- that's money. > > Sorry, I think you may have misinterpreted the results, which is my > fault - I introduced a formatting error. In the case of the "btree" > spreadsheet, the first query on each sheet should be "create index > test on orderlines (prod_id);", and not "select * from orderlines > order by prod_id". The idea is to compare the results from each set of > binaries across pages of the spreadsheet (note that there are two > tabs). You should not compare anything between the two spreadsheets. > Revised btree results attached. The heap results that I posted do not > have any formatting errors, so they have not been revised.
right-- my bad. still, that's 31-37% -- still pretty nice. merlin -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
