From: | Bernd Helmle <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Zdenek Kotala <Zdenek(dot)Kotala(at)sun(dot)com> |
Cc: | Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [PATCH] dtrace probes for memory manager |
Date: | 2009-12-11 14:22:03 |
Message-ID: | 7029FC2DB06B34D48EB8E155@[172.26.14.62] |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
--On 10. Dezember 2009 23:55:49 -0500 Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:
> If there's some real-world test where this probe costs 0.3%-0.4%, I
> think that is sufficient grounds for rejecting this patch. I
> understand the desire of people to be able to use dtrace, but our
> performance is too hard-won for me to want to give any measurable of
> it up for tracing and instrumentation hooks that will only be used by
> a small number of users in a small number of situations.
I repeated the pgbench runs per Greg's advice (see upthread) and it seems
there is actually a small slowdown which supports this argument,
unfortunately. After repeating the pgbench runs with and without the new
probes (note: i've used the new version of the patch, too), the numbers are
going to stabilize as follows:
without compiled probes: AVG(2531.68)
with compiled probes: AVG(2511.97)
I can repeat that tests over and over, but this doesn't seem to change the
whole picture (so there seems some real argument for a 0.4 - 0.6% cost, at
least on *my* machine here with pgbench).
--
Thanks
Bernd
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2009-12-11 14:28:54 | Re: [PATCH] dtrace probes for memory manager |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2009-12-11 14:20:58 | Re: Adding support for SE-Linux security |