On Wed, Dec 02, 2020 at 08:18:08PM +0100, Dmitry Dolgov wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 02, 2020 at 12:58:51PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > So ... one of the things that's been worrying me about this patch
> > from day one is whether it would create a noticeable performance
> > penalty for existing use-cases. I did a small amount of experimentation
> > about that with the v35 patchset, and it didn't take long at all to
> > find that this:
> > --- cut ---
> >
> > is about 15% slower with the patch than with HEAD. I'm not sure
> > what an acceptable penalty might be, but 15% is certainly not it.
> >
> > I'm also not quite sure where the cost is going. It looks like
> > 0001+0002 aren't doing much to the executor except introducing
> > one level of subroutine call, which doesn't seem like it'd account
> > for that.
>
> I've tried to reproduce that, but get ~2-4% slowdown (with a pinned
> backend, no turbo etc). Are there any special steps I've probably
> missed? At the same time, I remember had conducted this sort of tests
> before when you and others raised the performance degradation question
> and the main part of the patch was already more or less stable. From
> what I remember the numbers back then were also rather small.
Are you comparing with casserts (and therefor MEMORY_CONTEXT_CHECKING) disabled?
--
Justin
