Re: Performance degradation in commit ac1d794

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Васильев Дмитрий <d(dot)vasilyev(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Performance degradation in commit ac1d794
Date: 2016-02-11 17:53:08
Message-ID: 20160211175308.6er3o2oonzgxfvwp@alap3.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2016-02-11 12:50:58 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 12:48 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> > Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> >> I think we should either get this fixed RSN or revert the problematic
> >> commit until we get it fixed. I'd be rather disappointed about the
> >> latter because I think this was a very good thing on the merits, but
> >> probably not good enough to justify taking the performance hit over
> >> the long term.
> >
> > Since it's only in HEAD, I'm not seeing the urgency of reverting it.
> > However, it'd be a good idea to put this on the 9.6 open items list
> > (have we got such a page yet?) to make sure it gets addressed before
> > beta.
>
> One problem is that it makes for misleading results if you try to
> benchmark 9.5 against 9.6.

You need a really beefy box to show the problem. On a large/new 2 socket
machine the performance regression in in the 1-3% range for a pgbench of
SELECT 1. So it's not like it's immediately showing up for everyone.

Putting it on the open items list sounds good to me.

Regards,

Andres

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2016-02-11 17:56:09 Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2
Previous Message Pavel Stehule 2016-02-11 17:53:00 Re: Add schema-qualified relnames in constraint error messages.