Hi,
Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>, 6 Tem 2023 Per, 06:56 tarihinde
şunu yazdı:
>
> On Wed, Jul 5, 2023 at 1:48 AM Melih Mutlu <m.melihmutlu@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu) <kuroda.hayato@fujitsu.com>, 4 Tem 2023 Sal,
> > 08:42 tarihinde şunu yazdı:
> > > > > But in the later patch the tablesync worker tries to reuse the slot during the
> > > > > synchronization, so in this case the application_name should be same as
> > > > slotname.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Fair enough. I am slightly afraid that if we can't show the benefits
> > > > with later patches then we may need to drop them but at this stage I
> > > > feel we need to investigate why those are not helping?
> > >
> > > Agreed. Now I'm planning to do performance testing independently. We can discuss
> > > based on that or Melih's one.
> >
> > Here I attached what I use for performance testing of this patch.
> >
> > I only benchmarked the patch set with reusing connections very roughly
> > so far. But seems like it improves quite significantly. For example,
> > it took 611 ms to sync 100 empty tables, it was 1782 ms without
> > reusing connections.
> > First 3 patches from the set actually bring a good amount of
> > improvement, but not sure about the later patches yet.
> >
>
> I suggest then we should focus first on those 3, get them committed
> and then look at the remaining.
>
That sounds good. I'll do my best to address any review/concern from
reviewers now for the first 3 patches and hopefully those can get
committed first. I'll continue working on the remaining patches later.
--
Melih Mutlu
Microsoft
