On 2014-02-01 13:40:20 -0800, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 4:57 AM, Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> >> I'm looking at alternative options, because this is not terribly
> >> helpful. With those big caveats in mind, consider the results of the
> >> benchmark, which show the patch performing somewhat worse than the
> >> master baseline at higher client counts:
> >
> > I think that's actually something else. I'd tried to make some
> > definitions simpler, and that has, at least for the machine I have
> > occasional access to, pessimized things. I can't always run the tests
> > there, so I hadn't noticed before the repost.
>
> I should have been clearer on one point: The pre-rebased patch (actual
> patch series) [1] was applied on top of a commit from around the same
> period, in order to work around the bit rot.
Ah. Then I indeed wouldn't expect improvements.
> However, I tested the
> most recent revision from your git remote on the AWS instance.
>
> [1] http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20131115194725.GG5489@awork2.anarazel.de
But that was before my fix, right. Except you managed to timetravel :)
Greetings,
Andres Freund
-- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training &
Services
