Re: Performance degradation in commit 6150a1b0

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
To: Ashutosh Sharma <ashu(dot)coek88(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Performance degradation in commit 6150a1b0
Date: 2016-03-27 12:15:50
Message-ID: 20160327121550.terrtfcfsj4ud4o5@alap3.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Dilip Kumar 2016-03-27 12:15:52 Re: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics
Previous Message Andres Freund 2016-03-27 12:10:26 Re: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics