Hello, all I have more benchmarks.
These benchmarks are from a Raspberry Pi 5 that I bought. It has an Arm Cortex A76 processor.
(I was so impressed with the stability of the results I got on my standalone Intel tower PC that I figured I needed a standalone Arm-based machine that was not a laptop and not a VM at a cloud service provider. The run-to-run results were indeed more stable, just like with my standalone tower PC.)
COPY FROM
master: (852558b9)
text, no special: 9111
text, 1/3 special: 10302
csv, no special: 11147
csv, 1/3 special: 13375
v3
text, no special: 7351 (19.3% speedup)
text, 1/3 special: 10397 (0.9% regression)
csv, no special: 7272 (34.7% speedup)
csv, 1/3 special: 13472 (0.7% regression)
v4.2
text, no special: 7300 (19.6% speedup)
text, 1/3 special: 10537 (2.3% regression)
csv, no special: 7260 (34.8% speedup)
csv, 1/3 special: 13881 (3.8% regression)
COPY TO
master: (852558b9)
text, no special: 2446
text, 1/3 special: 6988
csv, no special: 2822
csv, 1/3 special: 6967
v4 (copy to)
text, no special: 1533 (37.3% speedup)
text, 1/3 special: 5949 (14.8% speedup)
csv, no special: 1560 (44.7% speedup)
csv, 1/3 special: 6006 (13.8% speedup)
I find these results particularly exciting because with the COPY FROM v3 patch, the worst-case scenarios are just under 1% regression. The v4 COPY TO patch is a win across the board.
Note that I ran these benchmarks with everything in RAM disk and using the cpupower instructions that Nazir suggested.
So on Arm, the v3 COPY FROM patch is almost all upside, and the v4 COPY TO patch is all upside. The same is almost true for Intel, but the CSV COPY FROM regression, even from the V3 COPY FROM patch, is about 5%. The v4.2 COPY FROM patch always performs worse than the v3 COPY FROM patch in worst-case scenarios.
Does it seem reasonable to stop performance testing the v4.2 COPY FROM patch? Have we collected enough benchmark data to be confident that the v3 COPY FROM patch is the one we should be moving forward with?
