From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Васильев Дмитрий <d(dot)vasilyev(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Performance degradation in commit ac1d794 |
Date: | 2016-06-01 02:23:29 |
Message-ID: | 14760.1464747809@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> writes:
> On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 10:09:05PM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
>> What I *think* is going on here is:
>> - ac1d794 lowered performance
>> - backend_flush_after with a non-zero default lowered performance with
>> a vengeance
>> - 98a64d0 repaired the damage done by ac1d794, or much of it, but
>> Mithun couldn't see it in his benchmarks because backend_flush_after>0
>> is so bad
> Ashutosh Sharma's measurements do bolster that conclusion.
>> That could be wrong, but I haven't seen any evidence that it's wrong.
>> So I'm inclined to say we should just move this open item back to the
>> CLOSE_WAIT list (adding a link to this email to explain why we did
>> so). Does that work for you?
> That works for me.
Can we make a note to re-examine this after the backend_flush_after
business is resolved? Or at least get Mithun to redo his benchmarks
with backend_flush_after set to zero?
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Noah Misch | 2016-06-01 02:26:03 | Re: parallel.c is not marked as test covered |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2016-06-01 02:22:32 | Re: Reviewing freeze map code |