On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 11:59 AM, Greg Smith wrote:
> On 01/24/2012 08:58 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
>>
>> One somewhat odd thing about these numbers is that, on permanent
>> tables, all of the patches seemed to show regressions vs. master in
>> single-client throughput. That's a slightly difficult re
On 01/24/2012 08:58 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
One somewhat odd thing about these numbers is that, on permanent
tables, all of the patches seemed to show regressions vs. master in
single-client throughput. That's a slightly difficult result to
believe, though, so it's probably a testing artifact of
> My test was run with synchronous_commit=off, so I didn't expect the
> group commit patch to have much of an impact. I included it mostly to
> see whether by chance it helped anyway (since it also helps other WAL
> flushes, not just commits) or whether it caused any regression.
Oh, I see.
> One
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 1:26 AM, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
>> ** pgbench, permanent tables, scale factor 100, 300 s **
>> 1 group-commit-2012-01-21 614.425851 -10.4%
>> 8 group-commit-2012-01-21 4705.129896 +6.3%
>> 16 group-commit-2012-01-21 7962.131701 +2.0%
>> 24 group-commit-2012-01-21 13074.939290
On 24 January 2012 06:26, Tatsuo Ishii wrote:
>> ** pgbench, permanent tables, scale factor 100, 300 s **
>> 1 group-commit-2012-01-21 614.425851 -10.4%
>> 8 group-commit-2012-01-21 4705.129896 +6.3%
>> 16 group-commit-2012-01-21 7962.131701 +2.0%
>> 24 group-commit-2012-01-21 13074.939290 -1.5%
>
> ** pgbench, permanent tables, scale factor 100, 300 s **
> 1 group-commit-2012-01-21 614.425851 -10.4%
> 8 group-commit-2012-01-21 4705.129896 +6.3%
> 16 group-commit-2012-01-21 7962.131701 +2.0%
> 24 group-commit-2012-01-21 13074.939290 -1.5%
> 32 group-commit-2012-01-21 12458.962510 +4.5%
> 80
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 7:52 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 3:49 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>
>>> The other patches have clearer and specific roles without heuristics
>>> (mostly), so are at least viable for 9.2, though still requiring
>>> agreement.
>>
>> I think we must also drop
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 3:49 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
>> The other patches have clearer and specific roles without heuristics
>> (mostly), so are at least viable for 9.2, though still requiring
>> agreement.
>
> I think we must also drop removebufmgrfreelist-v1 from consideration,
...
I think you
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 10:35 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> freelist_ok was a prototype for testing/discussion, which contained an
> arguable heuristic. I guess that means its also "in play", but I
> wasn't thinking we'd be able to assemble clear evidence for 9.2.
OK, that one is still in the test run
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> I'm working on it.
Good, thanks for the update.
>> The remaining patch you tested was withdrawn and not submitted to the CF.
>
> Oh. Which one was that? I thought all of these were in play.
freelist_ok was a prototype for testing/discuss
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 9:31 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> Test duration is important for tests that don't relate to pure
> contention reduction, which is every patch apart from XLogInsert.
Yes, I know. I already said that I was working on more tests to
address other use cases.
> I'm very happy to s
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 1:53 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> Results are the median of three five-minute test runs
> checkpoint_timeout = 15min
Test duration is important for tests that don't relate to pure
contention reduction, which is every patch apart from XLogInsert.
We've discussed that before,
There was finally some time available on Nate Boley's server, which he
has been kind enough to make highly available for performance testing
throughout this cycle, and I got a chance to run some benchmarks
against a bunch of the perfomance-related patches in the current
CommitFest. Specifically, I
13 matches
Mail list logo
