On Tue, 27 Nov 2007, Simon Riggs wrote:
My vision for that is a set of tests that test very specific aspects of
code, much the same way as the regression tests attempt feature
coverage. Examples would be
- 1 INSERTs
- 1 INSERTs using multi-VALUEs clauses
- 10 rows inserted by COPY
-
Every release we seem to have the same debates about performance issues.
In 8.0 we shipped knowing that bgwriter had serious deficiencies, plus
had no way of logging SQL statements for performance tuning. In 8.2 we
even ended up tweaking the planner *after* release.
What I don't understand is
On Tue, Nov 27, 2007 at 05:32:49PM +, Simon Riggs wrote:
What I would really like to persuade everybody is that performance needs
specific attention.
[. . .]
Your thoughts are welcome,
Well, one thing that might help is something of the specifics you mention.
I remember mentioning to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 17:32:49 +
Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maybe we should give each Beta a name, such as Initial Beta,
Performance Beta, Usability Beta as a way of encouraging folk to
focus onto particular aspects of quality at what
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 18:18:52 +
Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2007-11-27 at 10:08 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Agreed. I either initiated or assisted with most of those items; but
that's
Simon Riggs wrote:
We obviously need a performance build farm and I think everyone accepts
that. We just need to do it, so that's a given and is something I hope
to be involved in.
It's on my list ... Had I but world enough and time ...
Performance testing can be bolted onto the
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 17:32:49 +
Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maybe we should give each Beta a name, such as Initial Beta,
Performance Beta, Usability Beta as a way of encouraging folk to
focus onto
On Tue, 2007-11-27 at 10:08 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Maybe we should give each Beta a name, such as Initial Beta,
Performance Beta, Usability Beta as a way of encouraging folk to
focus onto particular aspects of quality at what we consider to be
Alvaro Herrera [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Well I think that we do take performance into account. I agree
that we should *never* have a regression in performance from release
to release, which is what I believe has inspired this thread.
Hmm. I have developed several
On Tue, 2007-11-27 at 13:54 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
However, I think everybody agrees that getting blindsided by unexpected
performance dropoffs is a bad thing. We really need to reinstitute
the sort of daily (or near-daily) performance tracking that Mark Wong
used to be doing, and extend it
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 20:32:57 +
Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2007-11-27 at 13:54 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
However, I think everybody agrees that getting blindsided by
unexpected performance dropoffs is a bad thing. We really
On Tue, 2007-11-27 at 13:32 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
We also need to talk about what would be a good set of tests to run.
I think we should develop a series of performance regression tests that
can be run as an option on the buildfarm. We'd want a separate page for
that with graphs etc, as
On Tue, 2007-11-27 at 12:36 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
The RHEL one as I know it, is the MyYearbook donated one. We are
currently unaware of the status of that machine except to say it is
currently running Gentoo.
I don't know the status of the Solaris machine except that I think we
had
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 21:00:03 +
Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2007-11-27 at 12:36 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
The RHEL one as I know it, is the MyYearbook donated one. We are
currently unaware of the status of that machine
On Tue, 2007-11-27 at 15:33 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
I agree
that we should *never* have a regression in performance from release
to release, which is what I believe has inspired this thread.
Hmm. I have developed several features that have driven performance
Simon Riggs wrote:
On Tue, 2007-11-27 at 13:32 -0500, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
We also need to talk about what would be a good set of tests to run.
Sounds like it's waiting on somebody to make the first move, so maybe I
should do that, then let everybody else chip into the framework.
Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Simon Riggs wrote:
Should we do this as part of core, or as a separate pgfoundry project?
Core, please. This is mainline -hackers material.
Huh? The buildfarm isn't in core, why would a performfarm be?
regards, tom lane
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 21:00:03 +
Simon Riggs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2007-11-27 at 12:36 -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
The RHEL one as I know it, is the MyYearbook donated one. We are
currently unaware of the status of that machine
On Nov 27, 2007 11:45 PM, Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you start with a set of tests and send it to me I will start work on
a benchmarking step in the buildfarm client.
Are you sure it shouldn't be a separate client? I don't think neither
the prerequisites nor the results wanted
Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Simon Riggs wrote:
Should we do this as part of core, or as a separate pgfoundry project?
Core, please. This is mainline -hackers material.
Huh? The buildfarm isn't in core, why would a performfarm be?
On Nov 27, 2007 7:32 PM, Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But a performance test machine
probably needs to be dedicated to just that function. And at least some
members of the performance test machines would need to be higher end
machines. The number of people who can afford such
Andrew,
It's the tests I think belong in core, not the farm software. Currently
buildfarm performs functionality tests that are also in core.
Jignesh and I were talking about writing a Pole Position-style test which
measures peformance on each of a couple dozen specific operations. There
Josh Berkus wrote:
Andrew,
It's the tests I think belong in core, not the farm software. Currently
buildfarm performs functionality tests that are also in core.
Jignesh and I were talking about writing a Pole Position-style test which
measures peformance on each of a couple dozen
Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Josh Berkus wrote:
... DW operations aren't
really testable without 18 hours to generate data ... but we could test a
lot of things.
Performance isn't just about humungous DW apps.
Indeed. I think the real take-home lesson from these past few
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 00:15:48 -0500
Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Josh Berkus wrote:
... DW operations aren't
really testable without 18 hours to generate data ... but we could
test a lot of
Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Josh Berkus wrote:
... DW operations aren't
really testable without 18 hours to generate data ... but we could test a
lot of things.
Performance isn't just about humungous DW apps.
Indeed. I think the real take-home lesson from
26 matches
Mail list logo
