Re: [HACKERS] basic pgbench runs with various performance-related patches

2012-02-05 Thread Robert Haas
On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 11:59 AM, Greg Smith g...@2ndquadrant.com 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

Re: [HACKERS] basic pgbench runs with various performance-related patches

2012-02-04 Thread Greg Smith
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

Re: [HACKERS] basic pgbench runs with various performance-related patches

2012-01-24 Thread Robert Haas
On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 1:26 AM, Tatsuo Ishii is...@postgresql.org 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

Re: [HACKERS] basic pgbench runs with various performance-related patches

2012-01-24 Thread Tatsuo Ishii
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

[HACKERS] basic pgbench runs with various performance-related patches

2012-01-23 Thread Robert Haas
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,

Re: [HACKERS] basic pgbench runs with various performance-related patches

2012-01-23 Thread Simon Riggs
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 1:53 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com 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

Re: [HACKERS] basic pgbench runs with various performance-related patches

2012-01-23 Thread Robert Haas
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 9:31 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com 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.

Re: [HACKERS] basic pgbench runs with various performance-related patches

2012-01-23 Thread Simon Riggs
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com 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

Re: [HACKERS] basic pgbench runs with various performance-related patches

2012-01-23 Thread Robert Haas
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 10:35 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com 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

Re: [HACKERS] basic pgbench runs with various performance-related patches

2012-01-23 Thread Simon Riggs
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 3:49 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com 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, ...

Re: [HACKERS] basic pgbench runs with various performance-related patches

2012-01-23 Thread Robert Haas
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 7:52 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote: On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 3:49 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote: The other patches have clearer and specific roles without heuristics (mostly), so are at least viable for 9.2, though still requiring agreement.

Re: [HACKERS] basic pgbench runs with various performance-related patches

2012-01-23 Thread Tatsuo Ishii
** 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

Re: [HACKERS] basic pgbench runs with various performance-related patches

2012-01-23 Thread Peter Geoghegan
On 24 January 2012 06:26, Tatsuo Ishii is...@postgresql.org 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