On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 3:08 PM k.jamison@fujitsu.com
<k.jamison@fujitsu.com> wrote:
>
> Hmm. When I repeated the performance measurement for non-recovery,
> I got almost similar execution results for both master and patched.
>
> Execution Time (in seconds)
> | s_b | master | patched | %reg |
> |-------|--------|---------|--------|
> | 128MB | 15.265 | 14.769 | -3.36% |
> | 1GB | 14.808 | 14.618 | -1.30% |
> | 20GB | 24.673 | 24.425 | -1.02% |
> | 100GB | 74.298 | 74.813 | 0.69% |
>
> That is considering that I removed the recovery-related checks in the patch and just
> executed the commands on a standalone server.
> - if (InRecovery && reln->smgr_cached_nblocks[forknum] != InvalidBlockNumber)
> + if (reln->smgr_cached_nblocks[forknum] != InvalidBlockNumber)
>
Why so? Have you tried to investigate? Check if it takes an optimized
path for the non-recovery case?
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
