Re: benchmark results comparing versions 15.2 and 16

From: Alexander Lakhin <exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: MARK CALLAGHAN <mdcallag(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Subject: Re: benchmark results comparing versions 15.2 and 16
Date: 2023-05-08 13:00:01
Message-ID: b32bed1b-0746-9b20-1472-4bdc9ca66d52@gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hello Mark,

05.05.2023 20:45, MARK CALLAGHAN wrote:
> This is mostly a hobby project for me - my other hobby is removing invasive weeds. I am happy to answer questions and
> run more tests, but turnaround for answers won't be instant. Getting results from Linux perf for these tests is on my
> TODO list. For now I am just re-running a subset of these to get more certainty that the regressions are real and not
> noise.
>

It's a very interesting topic to me, too. I had developed some scripts to
measure and compare postgres`s performance using miscellaneous public
benchmarks (ycsb, tpcds, benchmarksql_tpcc, htapbench, benchbase, gdprbench,
s64da-benchmark, ...). Having compared 15.3 (56e869a09) with master
(58f5edf84) I haven't seen significant regressions except a few minor ones.
First regression observed with a simple pgbench test:
pgbench -i benchdb
pgbench -c 10 -T 300 benchdb
(with default compilation options and fsync = off)

On master I get:
tps = 10349.826645 (without initial connection time)
On 15.3:
tps = 11296.064992 (without initial connection time)

This difference is confirmed by multiple test runs. `git bisect` for this
regression pointed at f193883fc.

Best regards,
Alexander

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2023-05-08 14:43:01 Re: [PATCH] Allow Postgres to pick an unused port to listen
Previous Message Robert Haas 2023-05-08 12:57:08 Re: base backup vs. concurrent truncation