On 9 January 2013 12:06, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila(at)huawei(dot)com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 09, 2013 4:52 PM Simon Riggs wrote:
>> On 24 December 2012 16:57, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila(at)huawei(dot)com> wrote:
>> > Performance: Average of 3 runs of pgbench in tps
>> > 9.3devel | with trailing null patch
>> > ----------+--------------------------
>> > 578.9872 | 573.4980
>> On balance, it would seem optimizing for this special case would
>> affect everybody negatively; not much, but enough. Which means we
>> should rekect this patch.
>> Do you have a reason why a different view might be taken?
> I have tried to dig why this gap is coming. I have observed that there is
> very less change in normal path.
> I wanted to give it some more time to exactly find if something can be done
> to avoid performance dip in normal execution.
> Right now I am busy in certain other work. But definitely in coming week or
> so, I shall spare time to work on it again.
Perhaps. Not every idea produces useful outcomes. Even after your
excellent research, it appears we haven't made this work yet. It's a
shame. Should we invest more time? It's considered rude to advise
others how to spend their time, but let me say this: we simply don't
have enough time to do everything and we need to be selective,
prioritising our time on to the things that look to give the best
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Andres Freund||Date: 2013-01-09 12:19:19|
|Subject: Re: Extra XLOG in Checkpoint for StandbySnapshot|
|Previous:||From: Amit Kapila||Date: 2013-01-09 12:12:38|
|Subject: Re: Performance Improvement by reducing WAL for Update Operation|