Re: Performance degradation in commit 6150a1b0 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Ashutosh Sharma
Subject Re: Performance degradation in commit 6150a1b0
Date
Msg-id CAE9k0P=QCYFdiOCsy8VrmR0NHji9VgtNZ22PwEq_Ye1f65v2BA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Performance degradation in commit 6150a1b0  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
List pgsql-hackers
Hi,

I am unable to revert 6150a1b0 on top of recent commit in the master branch. It seems like there has been some commit made recently that has got dependency on 6150a1b0.

With Regards,
Ashutosh Sharma
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 5:45 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
Hi,

On 2016-03-27 02:34:32 +0530, Ashutosh Sharma wrote:
> As mentioned in my earlier mail i was not able to apply
> *pinunpin-cas-5.patch* on commit *6150a1b0,

That's not surprising; that's pretty old.

> *therefore i thought of applying it on the latest commit and i was
> able to do it successfully. I have now taken the performance readings
> at latest commit i.e. *76281aa9* with and without applying
> *pinunpin-cas-5.patch* and my observations are as follows,
>

> 1. I can still see that the current performance lags by 2-3% from the
> expected performance when *pinunpin-cas-5.patch *is applied on the commit
>
> *76281aa9.*
> 2. When *pinunpin-cas-5.patch *is ignored and performance is measured at
> commit *76281aa9 *the overall performance lags by 50-60% from the expected
> performance.
>
> *Note:* Here, the expected performance is the performance observed before
> commit *6150a1b0 *when* ac1d794 *is reverted.

Thanks for doing these benchmarks. What's the performance if you revert
6150a1b0 on top of a recent master? There've been a lot of other patches
influencing performance since 6150a1b0, so minor performance differences
aren't necessarily meaningful; especially when that older version then
had other patches reverted.

Thanks,

Andres

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: lannis
Date:
Subject: in drop database, auto-vacuum and immediate shutdown concurrency scene, hot-standby server redo FATAL
Next
From: Anastasia Lubennikova
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Supporting +-Infinity values by to_timestamp(float8)