Re: 9.4 regression - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Andres Freund
Subject Re: 9.4 regression
Date
Msg-id 20130807164958.GD4503@alap2.anarazel.de
Whole thread Raw
In response to 9.4 regression  (Thom Brown <thom@linux.com>)
Responses Re: 9.4 regression
List pgsql-hackers
On 2013-08-07 17:21:01 +0100, Thom Brown wrote:
> Only build option used was --enable-depend.  I did have
> --enable-cassert for the shorter 5 min benchmarks, but was removed for
> the 30 min tests.

> pgbench -j 80 -c 80 -T 300:
> 
> 8.4 - 535.990042
> 9.2 - 820.798141
> 9.3 - 828.395498
> 9.4 - 197.851720
e> 
> pgbench -j 80 -c 80 -T 1800:
> 
> 8.4: 812.482108
> 9.4 HEAD: 355.397658
> 9.4 e5592c (9th July): 356.485625
> 9.4 537227 (7th July): 365.992518
> 9.4 9b2543 (7th July): 362.587339
> 9.4 269e78 (5th July): 359.439143
> 9.4 8800d8 (5th July): 821.933082
> 9.4 568d41 (2nd July): 822.991160

The differences between those runs look to small for enable/disable
cassert to me. Are you you properly rebuilt for that?

> 269e78 was the commit immediately after 8800d8, so it appears that
> introduced the regression.
> 
> "Use posix_fallocate() for new WAL files, where available."

This is curious. Could you either run a longer test before/after the
commit or reduce checkpoint_timeout to something like 3min?

Greetings,

Andres Freund

-- Andres Freund                       http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training &
Services



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: refactor heap_deform_tuple guts
Next
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: Should we remove "not fast" promotion at all?