From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: what to revert |
Date: | 2016-05-10 21:06:15 |
Message-ID: | 20160510210615.gvffsgjc7j2vml27@alap3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2016-05-10 13:36:32 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 12:31 PM, Tomas Vondra
> <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> > The following table shows the differences between the disabled and reverted
> > cases like this:
> >
> > sum('reverted' results with N clients)
> > ---------------------------------------- - 1.0
> > sum('disabled' results with N clients)
> >
> > for each scale/client count combination. So for example 4.83% means with a
> > single client on the smallest data set, the sum of the 5 runs for reverted
> > was about 1.0483x than for disabled.
> >
> > scale 1 16 32 64 128
> > 100 4.83% 2.84% 1.21% 1.16% 3.85%
> > 3000 1.97% 0.83% 1.78% 0.09% 7.70%
> > 10000 -6.94% -5.24% -12.98% -3.02% -8.78%
>
> /me scratches head.
>
> That doesn't seem like noise, but I don't understand the
> scale-factor-10000 results either.
Hm. Could you change max_connections by 1 and 2 and run the 10k tests
again for each value? I wonder whether we're seing the affect of changed
shared memory alignment.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2016-05-10 21:09:37 | Re: HeapTupleSatisfiesToast() busted? (was atomic pin/unpin causing errors) |
Previous Message | Kevin Grittner | 2016-05-10 21:03:43 | Re: what to revert |