Beena Emerson
memis****@gmail*****
2013年 10月 3日 (木) 18:46:19 JST
On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 7:24 PM, Fujii Masao <masao****@gmail*****> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 11:47 PM, Fujii Masao <masao****@gmail*****> > wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 2:23 PM, Beena Emerson <memis****@gmail*****> > wrote: > >> On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 4:22 PM, Fujii Masao <masao****@gmail*****> > wrote: > >>> > >>> Thanks to this patch, the fast-path seems to be more likely to be > >>> executed. So I think it's better to improve CPBIGM() which is > >>> executed in the fast-path. What I'm thinking is to change CPBIGM() > >>> as CPTRGM(), i.e., > >>> > >>> #define CPBIGM(a,b) do { \ > >>> *(((char*)(a))+0) = *(((char*)(b))+0); \ > >>> *(((char*)(a))+1) = *(((char*)(b))+1); \ > >>> bptr->bytelen = len; \ > >>> bptr->pmatch = false; \ > >>> } while(0); > >>> > >>> and then move what CPBIGM() is now doing to compact_bigram(). > >>> > >>> I'm not sure whether the above change really increase the performance, > >>> but it seems to be worth trying that because avoiding memcpy() > >>> basically gives us better performance. Of course, performance test > >>> is required before applying the patch, though. Thought? > >> > >> > >> The attached patch edits the CPBIGM and compact_bigram code as > discussed. > >> > >> I performed some pgbench tests with custom queries on table with around > 2MB > >> data and found that there was around 5% increase in throughput after the > >> patch was applied. > >> > >> Scenario 1: Vanilla pg_bigm > >> Scenario 2: pg_bigm with the attached patch applied. > >> > >> query1 : search string 'postgresql.conf' > >> query2 : search string 'database' > >> query3 : search string ' bigm' > >> > >> > >> The following table gives the average tps (excl connection > establishing) of > >> four runs for each query in each scenario > >> > >> Average-> query1 query2 > query3 > >> Scenario 1: 51.80787 95.12354 > 492.0916 > >> Scenario 2: 54.79781 100.8324 > 514.0516 > >> % increase 5.77 6.0 > >> 4.46 > > > > Thanks for the patch! I also will do the benchmark! > > I could not see any performance improvement by the patch in the > benchmark... > Could you let me know how you did the benchmark? > > I will also re run the tests and let you know the details. Beena Emerson -------------- next part -------------- HTML$B$NE:IU%U%!%$%k$rJ]4I$7$^$7$?(B...Descargar
Fork