Greg Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, 4 May 2008, Tom Lane wrote:
>> However, I am completely unable to measure any performance improvement
>> from it.  Given the possible risk of out-of-memory failures, I think the
>> patch should not be applied without some direct proof of performance
>> benefits, and I don't see any.

> Fair enough.  There were some pgbench results attached to the original 
> patch submission that gave me a good idea how to replicate the situation 
> where there's some improvement.

Well, I tried a pgbench test similar to that one --- on smaller hardware
than was reported, so it was a bit smaller test case, but it should have
given similar results.  I didn't see any improvement; if anything it was
a bit worse.  So that's what got me concerned.

Of course it's notoriously hard to get consistent numbers out of pgbench
anyway, so I'd rather see some other test case ...

> I expect I can take a shot at quantifying 
> that independantly near the end of this month if nobody else gets to it 
> before then (I'm stuck sorting out a number of OS level issue right now 
> before my testing system is online again).  Was planning to take a longer 
> look at Greg Stark's prefetching work at that point as well.

Fair enough.  Unless someone can volunteer to test sooner, I think we
should drop this item from the current commitfest queue.

                        regards, tom lane

Sent via pgsql-patches mailing list (
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to