Hitoshi Harada wrote:
> 2009/1/15 Bruce Momjian :
> >
> > Has this been addressed?
>
> It is mentioned at
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008-12/msg01849.php
>
> * Look at tuplestore performance issues. The tuplestore_in_memory()
> thing is just a band-aid, we ought to try to s
"Hitoshi Harada" writes:
> 2009/1/15 Bruce Momjian :
>> Has this been addressed?
> It is mentioned at
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008-12/msg01849.php
> but not solved yet. It seems to me that to solve this the tuplestore's
> inside design should be changed much. In-file state
2009/1/15 Bruce Momjian :
>
> Has this been addressed?
It is mentioned at
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008-12/msg01849.php
* Look at tuplestore performance issues. The tuplestore_in_memory()
thing is just a band-aid, we ought to try to solve it properly.
tuplestore_advance seems
Has this been addressed?
---
Hitoshi Harada wrote:
> 2008/12/3 Tom Lane :
> > If this means a lot of contortion/complication in the upper-level code,
> > seems like it'd be better to address the performance issue within
> >
2008/12/3 Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> If this means a lot of contortion/complication in the upper-level code,
> seems like it'd be better to address the performance issue within
> tuplestore/buffile. We could keep separate buffers for write and read
> perhaps. But do you have real evidence of
> I don't have real evidence but reasoned it. No strace was done. So it
> may not be cased by flushing out but this commit gets performance
> quite better, to earlier patch performance, around 44sec from around
> 76sec.
>
Oh, I mean, 116sec to 44sec.
--
Hitoshi Harada
--
Sent via pgsql-hacker
"Hitoshi Harada" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> While attacking this issue(*1), I found that tuplestore that is on the
> file status has potential performance problem.
> The performance problem introduced by Heikki's new approach was caused
> by BufFile's frequent flush out in such cases like you p
While attacking this issue(*1), I found that tuplestore that is on the
file status has potential performance problem.
The performance problem introduced by Heikki's new approach was caused
by BufFile's frequent flush out in such cases like you put a new row
into it and read middle row of it then p
