From: | Jeff Davis <pgsql(at)j-davis(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Commitfest Status: Sudden Death Overtime |
Date: | 2011-07-19 04:41:04 |
Message-ID: | 1311050464.31101.31.camel@jdavis |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, 2011-07-18 at 15:59 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On a pgbench run with 8
> clients on a 32-core machine, I see about a 2% speedup from that patch
> on pgbench -S, and it grows to 8% at 32 clients. At 80 clients (but
> still just a 32-core box), the results bounce around more, but taking
> the median of three five-minute runs, it's an 11% improvement. To me,
> that's enough to make it worth applying, especially considering that
> what is 11% on today's master is, in raw TPS, equivalent to maybe 30%
> of yesterday's master (prior to the fast relation lock patch being
> applied). More, it seems pretty clear that this is the conceptually
> right thing to do, even if it's going to require some work elsewhere
> to file down all the rough edges thus exposed. If someone objects to
> that, then OK, we should talk about that: but so far I don't think
> anyone has expressed strong opposition: in which case I'd like to fix
> it up and get it in.
Agreed. I certainly like the concept of the lazy vxid patch.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2011-07-19 05:08:46 | Re: pg_upgrade and log file output on Windows |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2011-07-19 04:24:15 | Re: Avoid index rebuilds for no-rewrite ALTER TABLE ALTER TYPE |