On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 04:52:39PM +0530, Pavan Deolasee wrote: > The other critical bug I found, which unfortunately exists in the master too, > is the index corruption during CIC. The patch includes the same fix that I've > proposed on the other thread. With these changes, WARM stress is running fine > for last 24 hours on a decently powerful box. Multiple CREATE/DROP INDEX > cycles > and updates via different indexed columns, with a mix of FOR SHARE/UPDATE and > rollbacks did not produce any consistency issues. A side note: while > performance measurement wasn't a goal of stress tests, WARM has done about 67% > more transaction than master in 24 hour period (95M in master vs 156M in WARM > to be precise on a 30GB table including indexes). I believe the numbers would > be far better had the test not dropping and recreating the indexes, thus > effectively cleaning up all index bloats. Also the table is small enough to > fit > in the shared buffers. I'll rerun these tests with much larger scale factor > and > without dropping indexes.
Thanks for setting up the test harness. I know it is hard but in this case it has found an existing bug and given good performance numbers. :-) I have what might be a supid question. As I remember, WARM only allows a single index-column change in the chain. Why are you seeing such a large performance improvement? I would have thought it would be that high if we allowed an unlimited number of index changes in the chain. -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + As you are, so once was I. As I am, so you will be. + + Ancient Roman grave inscription + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
