On 2014-02-01 13:40:20 -0800, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 4:57 AM, Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> >> I'm looking at alternative options, because this is not terribly
> >> helpful. With those big caveats in mind, consider the results of the
> >> benchmark, which show the patch performing somewhat worse than the
> >> master baseline at higher client counts:
> >
> > I think that's actually something else. I'd tried to make some
> > definitions simpler, and that has, at least for the machine I have
> > occasional access to, pessimized things. I can't always run the tests
> > there, so I hadn't noticed before the repost.
> I should have been clearer on one point: The pre-rebased patch (actual
> patch series) [1] was applied on top of a commit from around the same
> period, in order to work around the bit rot.

Ah. Then I indeed wouldn't expect improvements.

> However, I tested the
> most recent revision from your git remote on the AWS instance.
> [1] 
> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20131115194725.gg5...@awork2.anarazel.de

But that was before my fix, right. Except you managed to timetravel :)


Andres Freund

 Andres Freund                     http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to