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 (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-patches