From: | Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | ldh(at)laurent-hasson(dot)com, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Big Performance drop of Exceptions in UDFs between V11.2 and 13.4 |
Date: | 2021-08-21 19:19:50 |
Message-ID: | 20210821191950.GW10479@telsasoft.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Sat, Aug 21, 2021 at 02:17:26PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> "ldh(at)laurent-hasson(dot)com" <ldh(at)laurent-hasson(dot)com> writes:
> > So you mean that on average, the 4x overhead of exceptions is around what you'd expect?
>
> Doesn't surprise me any, no. Exception recovery has to clean up after
> a wide variety of possible errors, with only minimal assumptions about
> what the system state had been. So it's expensive. More to the point,
> the overhead's been broadly the same for quite some time.
>
> > As for results in general, yes, your numbers look pretty uniform across versions. On my end, comparing V11.2 vs V13.4 shows a much different picture!
>
> I'm baffled why that should be so. I do not think any of the extensions
> you mention add any exception-recovery overhead, especially not in
> sessions that haven't used them.
Laurent, did you install binaries for v13.4 or compile it ?
What about these ?
SHOW shared_preload_libraries;
SHOW session_preload_libraries;
SHOW local_preload_libraries;
Would you try to reproduce the issue with a fresh database:
CREATE DATABASE udftest; ...
Or a fresh instance created with initdb.
As I recall, you're running postgres under a windows VM - I'm not sure if
that's relevant.
--
Justin
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Maciek Sakrejda | 2021-08-21 20:58:21 | Re: Big Performance drop of Exceptions in UDFs between V11.2 and 13.4 |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2021-08-21 18:17:26 | Re: Big Performance drop of Exceptions in UDFs between V11.2 and 13.4 |