On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 4:43 PM, Vladimir Borodin <r...@simply.name> wrote: > No, probably you misunderstood the results, let me explain one more time.
Yeah, I did, sorry. > Unpatched PostgreSQL from REL9_4_STABLE gave 15500 tps. Version with timings > - 14500 tps which is 6,5% worse. Version with sampling wait events every 10 > ms gave 13800 tps (11% worse than unpatched and 5% worse than with timings). OK. So, I don't really care about the timing stuff right now. I want to get the stuff without timings done first. To do that, we need to come to an agreement on how much information we're going to try to expose and from where, and we need to make sure that doing that doesn't cause a performance hit. Then, if we want to add timing as an optional feature for people who can tolerate the overhead, that's fine. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
