Re: benchmark results comparing versions 15.2 and 16
Alexander Law <exclusion@gmail.com>
From: Alexander Lakhin <exclusion@gmail.com>
To: David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>
Cc: MARK CALLAGHAN <mdcallag@gmail.com>, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org,
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Date: 2023-07-07T13:00:01Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Hello David, 11.05.2023 16:00, Alexander Lakhin wrote: > Yeah, I see. It's also interesting to me, which tests perform better after > that commit. It takes several hours to run all tests, so I can't present > results quickly, but I'll try to collect this information next week. To my regret, I could not find such tests that week, so I decided to try later, after reviewing my benchmark running infrastructure. But for now, as Postgres Pro company graciously shared the benchmarking infrastructure project [1], it's possible for anyone to confirm or deny my results. (You can also see which tests were performed and how.) Having done one more round of comprehensive testing, I still couldn't find winning tests for commit 3c6fc5820 (but reassured that test s64da_tpcds.query87 loses a little (and also s64da_tpcds.query38)). So it seems to me that the tests I performed or their parameters is not representative enough for that improvement, unfortunately. [1] https://github.com/postgrespro/pg-mark Best regards, Alexander
Commits
-
Add back SQLValueFunction for SQL keywords
- d8c3106bb60e 16.0 landed
-
Add missing TAP test name
- 1ab763fc22ad 16.0 cited
-
Have the planner consider Incremental Sort for DISTINCT
- 3c6fc58209f2 16.0 cited