Hi Amit, > Sorry, I didn't mean to dissuade you from trying those > micro-optimizations. If general inheritance cases can benefit from it > (which, until we have a different method, will be used by partitioned > tables as well), I think we should try it.
OK, I'll see what could be done here as well then. On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 10:55:12AM +0900, Amit Langote wrote: > Hi Aleksander, > > On 2017/03/07 0:22, Aleksander Alekseev wrote: > > Hello. > > > > OK, here is a patch. > > > > Benchmark, before: > > > > ``` > > number of transactions actually processed: 1823 > > latency average = 1153.495 ms > > latency stddev = 154.366 ms > > tps = 6.061104 (including connections establishing) > > tps = 6.061211 (excluding connections establishing) > > ``` > > > > Benchmark, after: > > > > ``` > > number of transactions actually processed: 2462 > > latency average = 853.862 ms > > latency stddev = 112.270 ms > > tps = 8.191861 (including connections establishing) > > tps = 8.192028 (excluding connections establishing) > > ``` > > > > +35% TPS, just as expected. Feel free to run your own benchmarks on > > different datasets and workloads. `perf top` shows that first bottleneck > > is completely eliminated. > > That seems like a good gain. > > > I did nothing about the second bottleneck > > since as Amit mentioned partition-pruning should solve this anyway and > > apparently any micro-optimizations don't worth an effort. > > Sorry, I didn't mean to dissuade you from trying those > micro-optimizations. If general inheritance cases can benefit from it > (which, until we have a different method, will be used by partitioned > tables as well), I think we should try it. > > Thanks, > Amit > > -- Best regards, Aleksander Alekseev
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
