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 :) Greetings, 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: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
