Re: Why we are going to have to go DirectIO - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Peter Eisentraut
Subject Re: Why we are going to have to go DirectIO
Date
Msg-id 1386132008.27399.3.camel@vanquo.pezone.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Why we are going to have to go DirectIO  (Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>)
Responses Re: Why we are going to have to go DirectIO
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, 2013-12-03 at 14:44 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Would certainly be nice.  Realistically, getting good automated
> performace tests will require paying someone like Greg S., Mark or me
> for 6 solid months to develop them, since worthwhile open source
> performance test platforms currently don't exist.  That money has
> never been available; maybe I should do a kickstarter.

I think the problem is, it's not even clear what the deliverable might
be.  Benchmarking tools exist, and running them on a regular schedule
shouldn't be difficult.  But that doesn't find regressions between
kernel versions, for example, or regressions in particular queries
(unless they happen to be included in the benchmark).

The first step here should be to work out the minimum viable product,
and then see what it would take to get that done.




pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: KONDO Mitsumasa
Date:
Subject: Re: Why we are going to have to go DirectIO
Next
From: Claudio Freire
Date:
Subject: Re: Parallel Select query performance and shared buffers