Ideriha, Takeshi wrote > 2) benchmarked 3 times for each conditions and got the average result of > TPS. > |master branch | prototype | > proto/master (%) > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > pgbench -c48 -T60 -Msimple -S | 131297 |130541 |101% > pgbench -c48 -T60 -Msimple | 4956 |4965 |95% > pgbench -c48 -T60 -Mprepared -S |129688 |132538 |97% > pgbench -c48 -T60 -Mprepared |5113 |4615 |84% > > > 001_global_meta_cache.patch (6K) > <http://www.postgresql-archive.org/attachment/6026686/0/001_global_meta_cache.patch>
Hello, Apologies for question. I thought I would just double check percentages that have been presented. Is the percentage calculation correct? as #1 and #3 look inverted to me (say lower when should be higher and vice versa), and #2 and #4 look incorrect generally (percentages look much larger than they should be based on numbers. I.e. Msimple -S the protype had slightly worse tps performance (130541) versus Master (131297). I would expect the percentage to be e.g. 99% not 101% But I may be misunderstanding something :) Also, Msimple is 4956 master versus 4965 prototype. Just 9 tps change. A very slight improvement in tps. but the percentage provided is 95%. I would expect it to be just over 100%? Again, maybe im not understanding, and hoping it is just my error :) -- Sent from: http://www.postgresql-archive.org/PostgreSQL-hackers-f1928748.html
