>-----Original Message-----
>From: AJG [mailto:ayden@gera.co.nz]
>Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2018 3:21 AM
>To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
>Subject: Re: Global shared meta cache
>
>Ideriha, Takeshi wrote
>> 2) benchmarked 3 times for each conditions and got the average result
>> of TPS.
>> |master branch | prototype |
>> proto/master (%)
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> pgbench -c48 -T60 -Msimple -S | 131297 |130541 |101%
>> pgbench -c48 -T60 -Msimple | 4956 |4965 |95%
>> pgbench -c48 -T60 -Mprepared -S |129688 |132538 |97%
>> pgbench -c48 -T60 -Mprepared |5113 |4615 |84%
>>
>>
>> 001_global_meta_cache.patch (6K)
>> <http://www.postgresql-archive.org/attachment/6026686/0/001_global_
>> meta_cache.patch>
>
>
>Hello,
>Apologies for question. I thought I would just double check percentages that have
>been presented.
>Is the percentage calculation correct?
>as #1 and #3 look inverted to me (say lower when should be higher and vice versa),
>and
>#2 and #4 look incorrect generally (percentages look much larger than they should be
>based on numbers.
>
>I.e. Msimple -S the protype had slightly worse tps performance (130541) versus
>Master (131297). I would expect the percentage to be e.g. 99% not 101%
>
>But I may be misunderstanding something :)
>
>Also, Msimple is 4956 master versus 4965 prototype. Just 9 tps change. A very slight
>improvement in tps. but the percentage provided is 95%. I would expect it to be just
>over 100%?
>Again, maybe im not understanding, and hoping it is just my error :)
>
>
>
>--
>Sent from: http://www.postgresql-archive.org/PostgreSQL-hackers-f1928748.html
>
Hi,
Thank you for comments and sorry for late replay.
Thanks to you, I noticed I made a mistake.
As you pointed out, I think my calculation is wrong.
I also need to change some settings of postgresql.conf and pgbench.
So I'm going to measure performance again and submit the result.
Regards,
Takeshi Ideriha