Re: pglz performance
От | Tomas Vondra |
---|---|
Тема | Re: pglz performance |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20191101165950.b5azncggaqfan5fi@development обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: pglz performance (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: pglz performance
Re: pglz performance |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Nov 01, 2019 at 12:48:28PM -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote: >On 2019-Nov-01, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > >> On 2019-10-25 07:05, Andrey Borodin wrote: >> > > 21 окт. 2019 г., в 14:09, Andrey Borodin <x4mmm@yandex-team.ru> написал(а): >> > > >> > > With Silesian corpus pglz_decompress_hacked is actually decreasing performance on high-entropy data. >> > > Meanwhile pglz_decompress_hacked8 is still faster than usual pglz_decompress. >> > > In spite of this benchmarks, I think that pglz_decompress_hacked8 is safer option. >> > >> > Here's v3 which takes into account recent benchmarks with Silesian Corpus and have better comments. >> >> Your message from 21 October appears to say that this change makes the >> performance worse. So I don't know how to proceed with this. > >As I understand that report, in these results "less is better", so the >hacked8 variant shows better performance (33.8) than current (42.5). >The "hacked" variant shows worse performance (48.2) that the current >code. The "in spite" phrase seems to have been a mistake. > >I am surprised that there is so much variability in the performance >numbers, though, based on such small tweaks of the code. > I'd try running the benchmarks to verify the numbers, and maybe do some additional tests, but it's not clear to me which patches should I use. I think the last patches with 'hacked' and 'hacked8' in the name are a couple of months old, and the recent posts attach just a single patch. Andrey, can you post current versions of both patches? regards -- Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: