thread-index: AcfOutNxCPXqA65uS+uHED3oU5NHeA==
Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message
Importance: normal
Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] 8.2 -> 8.3 performance numbers
From: "Simon Riggs" <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
To: "Josh Berkus" <josh@agliodbs.com>
Cc: "Jim Nasby" <decibel@decibel.org>,
	"postgresql performance list" <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
In-Reply-To: <46A0EAE3.7030305@agliodbs.com>
References: <73185727-AD4A-4C97-B243-ADD2EE1875B5@decibel.org>
	<46A0EAE3.7030305@agliodbs.com>
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2007 13:52:13 +0100
Message-ID: <1185367933.4146.13.camel@ebony.site>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Fri, 2007-07-20 at 10:03 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Jim,
> 
> > Has anyone benchmarked HEAD against 8.2? I'd like some numbers to use in 
> > my OSCon lightning talk. Numbers for both with and without HOT would be 
> > even better (I know we've got HOT-specific benchmarks, but I want 
> > complete 8.2 -> 8.3 numbers).
> 
> We've done it on TPCE, which is a hard benchmark for PostgreSQL.  On 
> that it's +9% without HOT and +13% with HOT.  I think SpecJ would show a 
> greater difference, but we're still focussed on benchmarks we can 
> publish (i.e. 8.2.4) right now.

Josh,

Should you get the chance I would appreciate a comparative test for
TPC-E.

1. Normal TPC-E  versus  
2. TPC-E with all FKs against Fixed tables replaced with CHECK( col IN
(VALUES(x,x,x,...))) constraints on the referencing tables.

I have reasonable evidence that Referential Integrity is the major
performance bottleneck and would like some objective evidence that this
is the case.

No rush, since it will be an 8.4 thing to discuss and improve this
substantially in any of the ways I envisage.

-- 
  Simon Riggs
  EnterpriseDB  http://www.enterprisedb.com