From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Cc: | Mithun Cy <mithun(dot)cy(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Possible performance regression in version 10.1 with pgbench read-write tests. |
Date: | 2018-07-20 19:35:39 |
Message-ID: | 10299.1532115339@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> On 2018-07-21 00:53:28 +0530, Mithun Cy wrote:
>> I did a quick test applying the patch with same settings as initial mail I
>> have reported (On postgresql 10 latest code)
>> 72 clients
>>
>> CASE 1:
>> Without Patch : TPS 29269.823540
>>
>> With Patch : TPS 36005.544960. --- 23% jump
>>
>> Just Disabling using unnamed POSIX semaphores: TPS 34481.207959
>> So it seems that is the issue as the test is being run on 8 node numa
>> machine.
> Cool. I think we should just backpatch that then. Does anybody want to
> argue against?
Not entirely clear to me what change is being proposed here?
In any case, I strongly resist making performance-based changes on
the basis of one test on one kernel and one hardware platform.
We should reproduce the results on a few different machines before
we even think of committing anything. I'm happy to test on what
I have, although I'd be the first to agree that what I'm checking
is relatively low-end cases. (Too bad hydra's gone.)
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2018-07-20 19:50:42 | Re: Possible performance regression in version 10.1 with pgbench read-write tests. |
Previous Message | Minh-Quan Tran | 2018-07-20 19:31:44 | Re: Segfault logical replication PG 10.4 |