Re: [PATCH] dtrace probes for memory manager

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: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dtrace probes for memory manager
Date: 2009-12-08 20:42:31
Message-ID: 71030797A0D398DACBBE6E91@amenophis
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

--On 13. November 2009 17:16:15 -0500 Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:

> Don't think. Benchmark. :-)
>
> (If you can measure it at all, it's too much, at least IMHO.)

I've tried to benchmark this now on my (fairly slow compared to server
hardware) MacBook and see some negative trend for those memory probes in
pgbench. Running dozens of rounds with pgbench (scale 150, 10 clients /
1000 transactions) gives the following numbers (untuned PostgreSQL config):

AVG(tps) with dtrace memory probes: 31.62 tps
AVG(tps) without dtrace memory probes: 38.24 tps

So there seems to be a minor slowdown at least on *my* machine. However, it
would be fine if someone can prove these numbers..

What do you guys think, what other tests/parameters can be invoked to test
for an impact ?

--
Thanks

Bernd

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Greg Smith 2009-12-08 20:51:52 Re: [PATCH] dtrace probes for memory manager
Previous Message Robert Haas 2009-12-08 20:26:14 Re: Adding support for SE-Linux security