Re: [PATCHES] updated hash functions for postgresql v1
От | Jeff Davis |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [PATCHES] updated hash functions for postgresql v1 |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 1231611394.25019.86.camel@jdavis обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [PATCHES] updated hash functions for postgresql v1 (Kenneth Marshall <ktm@rice.edu>) |
Ответы |
Re: [PATCHES] updated hash functions for postgresql v1
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, 2009-01-10 at 11:06 -0600, Kenneth Marshall wrote: > > Separating mix() and final() should have some performance benefit, > > right? > > > Yes, it does but the results can be swamped by other latencies in the > code path. Tests such as Tom's benchmark of the underlying functions is > needed to isolate the timings effectively or a benchmark like Greenplum's > that will benefit from a more efficient function. > Ok. I isolated the function itself by just doing: -- 10 million rows of random()::text EXPLAIN ANALYZE SELECT hashtext(t) FROM randomtext; I ran 5 times on both old and new code, eliminating the top and bottom and taking the average of the remaining 3, and I got a 6.9% performance improvement with the new code. I tried quickly with a few other data types and got similar results. It's obviously a small microbenchmark, but that's good enough for me. Thanks! Regards,Jeff Davis
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: