On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 12:24 PM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com>

> On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 12:02 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 10:27 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> Client_Count/Patch_Ver 1 64 128 256
>>> HEAD(481725c0) 963 28145 28593 26447
>>> Patch-1 938 28152 31703 29402
>>> We can see 10~11% performance improvement as observed
>>> previously.  You might see 0.02% performance difference with
>>> patch as regression, but that is just a run-to-run variation.
>> Don't the single-client numbers show about a 3% regresssion?  Surely not
>> 0.02%.
> Sorry, you are right, it is ~2.66%, but in read-write pgbench tests, I
> could see such fluctuation.  Also patch doesn't change single-client
> case.  However, if you still feel that there could be impact by patch,
> I can re-run the single client case once again with different combinations
> like first with HEAD and then patch and vice versa.

Are these results from a single run, or median-of-three?

I mean, my basic feeling is that I would not accept a 2-3% regression in
the single client case to get a 10% speedup in the case where we have 128
clients.  A lot of people will not have 128 clients; quite a few will have
a single session, or just a few.  Sometimes just making the code more
complex can hurt performance in subtle ways, e.g. by making it fit into the
L1 instruction cache less well.  If the numbers you have here are accurate,
I'd vote to reject the patch.

Note that we already have apparently regressed single-client performance
noticeably between 9.0 and 9.5:


I bet that wasn't a single patch but a series of patches which made things
more complex to improve concurrency behavior, but in the process each one
made the single-client case a tiny bit slower.  In the end, that adds up.
I think we need to put some effort into figuring out if there is a way we
can get some of that single-client performance (and ideally more) back.

Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Reply via email to