From: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Luke Lonergan <llonergan@greenplum.com>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Benchmark Data requested
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2008 19:07:41 +0000
Message-ID: <1202152061.4252.539.camel@ebony.site> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <C3CC9DD5.52BD9%llonergan@greenplum.com>
References: <C3CC9DD5.52BD9%llonergan@greenplum.com>
On Mon, 2008-02-04 at 10:47 -0800, Luke Lonergan wrote:
> Note that MonetDB/X100 does not have a SQL optimizer, they ran raw
> hand-coded plans. As a consequence, these comparisons should be taken as an
> "executor-executor" test and we/you should be sure that the PG planner has
> generated the best possible plan.
If it doesn't then I'd regard that as a performance issue in itself.
> That said, we've already done the comparisons internally and they've got a
> good point to make about L2 cache use and removal of unnecessary
> abstractions in the executor. We've been aware of this since 2005/6 and
> have been slowly working these ideas into our/PG executor.
>
> Bottom line: it's a good thing to work to get close to the X100/Monet
> executor with a more general purpose DB. PG is a looong way from being
> comparable, mostly due to poor L2 D-cache locality and I-cache thrashing in
> the executor.
You maybe right, but I want to see where it hurts us the most.
> The only way to cure this is to work on more rows than one at a time.
Do you have any results to show that's true, or are you just referring
to the Cray paper? (Which used fixed length tuples and specific vector
hardware).
(With regard to benchmarks, I'd rather not download Monet at all. Helps
avoid legal issues around did-you-look-at-the-code questions.)
--
Simon Riggs
2ndQuadrant http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: simon@2ndquadrant.com, llonergan@greenplum.com
Subject: Re: Benchmark Data requested
In-Reply-To: <1202152061.4252.539.camel@ebony.site>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox