| From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
| Cc: | Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>, "Tharakan, Robins" <tharar(at)amazon(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: track_planning causing performance regression |
| Date: | 2020-06-30 13:40:40 |
| Message-ID: | 42a13b4c-e60c-c6e7-3475-8eff8050bed4@oss.nttdata.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2020/06/30 7:29, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 3:23 PM Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> wrote:
>> +1 -- this regression seems unacceptable to me.
>
> I added an open item to track this.
Thanks!
I'm thinking to change the default value of track_planning to off for v13.
Ants and Andres suggested to replace the spinlock used in pgss_store() with
LWLock. I agreed with them and posted the POC patch doing that. But I think
the patch is an item for v14. The patch may address the reported performance
issue, but may cause other performance issues in other workloads. We would
need to measure how the patch affects the performance in various workloads.
It seems too late to do that at this stage of v13. Thought?
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
Advanced Computing Technology Center
Research and Development Headquarters
NTT DATA CORPORATION
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Vik Fearing | 2020-06-30 13:54:16 | Implement <null treatment> for window functions |
| Previous Message | Fujii Masao | 2020-06-30 13:40:09 | Re: track_planning causing performance regression |