Hi Tsunakawa-san, Peter On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 7:53 AM, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote: > From: Peter Eisentraut [mailto:peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com] > > You posted a link to some performance numbers, but I didn't see the > > test setup explained there. I'd like to get some more information on > > this impact of this. Is there an effect with 100 tables, or do you > need 100000? > > Imai-san, can you tell us the test setup?
Maybe I used this test setup[1]. I tested again with those settings for prepared transactions. I used Tsunakawa-san's patch for locallock[2] (which couldn't be applied to current master so I fixed it) and Amit's v32 patch for speeding up planner[3]. [settings] plan_cache_mode = 'auto' or 'force_custom_plan' max_parallel_workers = 0 max_parallel_workers_per_gather = 0 max_locks_per_transaction = 4096 [partitioning table definitions(with 4096 partitions)] create table rt (a int, b int, c int) partition by range (a); \o /dev/null select 'create table rt' || x::text || ' partition of rt for values from (' || (x)::text || ') to (' || (x+1)::text || ');' from generate_series(1, 4096) x; \gexec \o [select4096.sql] \set a random(1, 4096) select a from rt where a = :a; [pgbench(with 4096 partitions)] pgbench -n -f select4096.sql -T 60 -M prepared [results] master locallock v32 v32+locallock ------ --------- --- ------------- auto 21.9 22.9 6,834 7,355 custom 19.7 20.0 7,415 7,252 [1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/0F97FA9ABBDBE54F91744A9B37151A51256276%40g01jpexmbkw24 [2] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/0A3221C70F24FB45833433255569204D1FBDFA00%40G01JPEXMBYT05 [3] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/9feacaf6-ddb3-96dd-5b98-df5e927b1439%40lab.ntt.co.jp -- Yoshikazu Imai