From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> |
Cc: | Ashutosh Sharma <ashu(dot)coek88(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Mithun Cy <mithun(dot)cy(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Perf Benchmarking and regression. |
Date: | 2016-06-09 21:37:31 |
Message-ID: | 20160609213731.hfvwr7be4bkkxy4l@alap3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2016-06-08 23:00:15 -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
> On Sun, May 29, 2016 at 01:26:03AM -0400, Noah Misch wrote:
> > On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 10:49:06AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> > > On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 8:39 AM, Ashutosh Sharma <ashu(dot)coek88(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > > > Please find the test results for the following set of combinations taken at
> > > > 128 client counts:
> > > >
> > > > 1) Unpatched master, default *_flush_after : TPS = 10925.882396
> > > >
> > > > 2) Unpatched master, *_flush_after=0 : TPS = 18613.343529
> > > >
> > > > 3) That line removed with #if 0, default *_flush_after : TPS = 9856.809278
> > > >
> > > > 4) That line removed with #if 0, *_flush_after=0 : TPS = 18158.648023
> > >
> > > I'm getting increasingly unhappy about the checkpoint flush control.
> > > I saw major regressions on my parallel COPY test, too:
> > >
> > > http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CA+TgmoYoUQf9cGcpgyGNgZQHcY-gCcKRyAqQtDU8KFE4N6HVkA@mail.gmail.com
> > >
> > > That was a completely different machine (POWER7 instead of Intel,
> > > lousy disks instead of good ones) and a completely different workload.
> > > Considering these results, I think there's now plenty of evidence to
> > > suggest that this feature is going to be horrible for a large number
> > > of users. A 45% regression on pgbench is horrible. (Nobody wants to
> > > take even a 1% hit for snapshot too old, right?) Sure, it might not
> > > be that way for every user on every Linux system, and I'm sure it
> > > performed well on the systems where Andres benchmarked it, or he
> > > wouldn't have committed it. But our goal can't be to run well only on
> > > the newest hardware with the least-buggy kernel...
> >
> > [This is a generic notification.]
> >
> > The above-described topic is currently a PostgreSQL 9.6 open item. Andres,
> > since you committed the patch believed to have created it, you own this open
> > item. If some other commit is more relevant or if this does not belong as a
> > 9.6 open item, please let us know. Otherwise, please observe the policy on
> > open item ownership[1] and send a status update within 72 hours of this
> > message. Include a date for your subsequent status update. Testers may
> > discover new open items at any time, and I want to plan to get them all fixed
> > well in advance of shipping 9.6rc1. Consequently, I will appreciate your
> > efforts toward speedy resolution. Thanks.
> >
> > [1] http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20160527025039.GA447393@tornado.leadboat.com
>
> This PostgreSQL 9.6 open item is past due for your status update. Kindly send
> a status update within 24 hours, and include a date for your subsequent status
> update. Refer to the policy on open item ownership:
> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20160527025039.GA447393@tornado.leadboat.com
I'm writing a patch right now, planning to post it later today, commit
it tomorrow.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Robert Haas | 2016-06-09 21:40:24 | Re: Parallel safety tagging of extension functions |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-06-09 20:48:25 | Re: Parallel safety tagging of extension functions |