| From: | Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Arjen van der Meijden <acmmailing(at)tweakers(dot)net>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [kris@obsecurity.org: Progress on scaling of FreeBSD on 8 CPU systems] |
| Date: | 2007-03-07 18:48:44 |
| Message-ID: | 45EF090C.6070503@kaltenbrunner.cc |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc> writes:
>> Arjen van der Meijden wrote:
>>> Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote:
>>>> ouch - do I read that right that even after tom's fixes for the
>>>> "regressions" in 8.2.0 we are still 30% slower then the -HEAD checkout
>>>> from the middle of the 8.2 development cycle ?
>>> Yes, and although I tested about 17 different cvs-checkouts, Tom and I
>>> weren't really able to figure out where "it" happened. So its a bit of a
>>> mystery why the performance is so much worse.
>
>> double ouch - losing that much in performance without an idea WHY it
>> happened is really unfortunate :-(
>
> Keep in mind that Arjen's test exercises some rather narrow scenarios;
> IIRC its performance is mostly determined by some complicated
> bitmap-indexscan cases. So that "30% slower" bit certainly doesn't
> represent an across-the-board figure. As best I can tell, the decisions
> the planner happened to be making in late June were peculiarly nicely
> suited to his test, but not so much for other cases.
understood - I was not trying to imply that we suffer a 30% performance
drop overall.
But still it means we know about a set of queries that we once could
handle faster than we can now ...
Stefan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Zoolin Lin | 2007-03-07 21:45:42 | Re: Any advantage to integer vs stored date w. timestamp |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-03-07 16:37:20 | Re: |