| From: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: what to revert |
| Date: | 2016-05-10 13:04:52 |
| Message-ID: | CACjxUsOL0s2DWRT5kNgc_498rsrrGXVNWHGiqBiAA2BGv9kxZw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 3:29 AM, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> * The results are a bit noisy, but I think in general this shows
>> that for certain cases there's a clearly measurable difference
>> (up to 5%) between the "disabled" and "reverted" cases. This is
>> particularly visible on the smallest data set.
>
> In some cases, the differences are in favor of disabled over
> reverted.
There were 75 samples each of "disabled" and "reverted" in the
spreadsheet. Averaging them all, I see this:
reverted: 290,660 TPS
disabled: 292,014 TPS
That's a 0.46% overall increase in performance with the patch,
disabled, compared to reverting it. I'm surprised that you
consider that to be a "clearly measurable difference". I mean, it
was measured and it is a difference, but it seems to be well within
the noise. Even though it is based on 150 samples, I'm not sure we
should consider it statistically significant.
--
Kevin Grittner
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2016-05-10 14:02:50 | Re: what to revert |
| Previous Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2016-05-10 12:57:47 | Re: GIN logging GIN_SEGMENT_UNMODIFIED actions? |