Martijn van Oosterhout <klep...@svana.org> Thursday 23 of June 2011 09:10:20 > On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 02:31:01PM +0200, Rados??aw Smogura wrote: > > I strictly disagree with opinion if there is 1% it's worthless. 1% > > here, 1% there, and finally You get 10%, but of course hugepages > > will work quite well if will be used in code that require many > > random "jumps". I think this can be reproduced and some not-common > > case may be found to get performance of about 10% (maybe upload > > whole table in shared buffer and randomly "peek" records one by > > one). > > I think the point is not that 1% is worthless, but that it hasn't been > shown that it is a 1% improvement, becuase the noise is too large. > > For benefits this small, what you need to is run each test 100 times > and check the mean and standard deviation and see whether the > improvment is real or not. > > When the benefit is 10% you only need a handful of runs to prove it, > which is why they're accepted easier. > > Have a nice day, > > > Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first; nationalism, > > when hate for people other than your own comes first. > > > > - Charles de Gaulle I think conclusion from this test was "Much more important things are to do, then 1% benefit" - not "1% is worthless".
I will try today hugepages, with random peeks. Regards, Radek -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
