Re: 8.4 open item: copy performance regression?

It doesn't look like it's related to autovacuum. I re-ran the test against
the two solaris boxes with autovacuum turned off and the results look about
the same.

8.3.7 - Solaris 10 11/06 s10x_u3wos_10 X86
real 0m43.662s
user 0m0.001s
sys 0m0.003s
real 0m43.565s
user 0m0.001s
sys 0m0.003s
real 0m43.742s
user 0m0.001s
sys 0m0.003s

8.4rc1 - Solaris 10 11/06 s10x_u3wos_10 X86
real 0m59.304s
user 0m0.001s
sys 0m0.003s
real 0m58.653s
user 0m0.001s
sys 0m0.003s
real 1m0.253s
user 0m0.001s
sys 0m0.003s

8.3.7 - Solaris 10 8/07 s10x_u4wos_12b X86
real 0m38.981s
user 0m0.002s
sys 0m0.004s
real 0m39.879s
user 0m0.002s
sys 0m0.004s
real 0m39.111s
user 0m0.002s
sys 0m0.004s

8.4rc1 - Solaris 10 8/07 s10x_u4wos_12b X86
real 0m50.647s
user 0m0.002s
sys 0m0.004s
real 0m49.453s
user 0m0.002s
sys 0m0.004s
real 0m49.725s
user 0m0.002s
sys 0m0.004s

Alan

On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 3:39 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> writes:
> > Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> >> I am unable to duplicate any slowdown on this test case.
>
> > [ Kevin can ]
>
> It'd be useful first off to figure out if it's a CPU or I/O issue.
> Is there any visible difference in vmstat output? Also, try turning
> off autovacuum in both cases, just to see if that's related.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
>
>
>