Re: Perfomance degradation 9.3 (vs 9.2) for FreeBSD

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>
Cc: Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org>, sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net, girgen(at)freebsd(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com, ftigeot(at)wolfpond(dot)org
Subject: Re: Perfomance degradation 9.3 (vs 9.2) for FreeBSD
Date: 2014-04-22 01:19:22
Message-ID: 5355C39A.50402@dunslane.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers


On 04/21/2014 09:16 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 6:08 PM, Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org> wrote:
>>> What we would need is a way to graph the results - that's something
>>> beyond my very rudimentary expertise in web programming. If anyone
>>> feels like collaborating I'd be glad to hear from them (The web site
>>> is programmed in perl + TemplateToolkit, but even that's not
>>> immutable. I'm open to using, say, node.js plus one of its templating
>>> engines.
>> gnuplot? (the graph I attached was created by gnuplt).
> That's all pgbench-tools itself uses.
>
> The problem with a performance farm is that it's relatively hard to
> donate a performance farm member. It more or less requires expensive
> hardware, and a large amount of rigor in testing and normalizing
> various aspects of the environment that might otherwise add noise.
> Then again, it might only take 2 or 3 servers to make a huge
> difference. There are a number of different things that would be
> immediately compelling to target with that kind of thing, so the first
> step is non-obvious too.
>

If we never start we'll never get there.

I can think of several organizations that might be approached to donate
hardware.

cheers

andrew

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Geoghegan 2014-04-22 01:30:54 Re: Clock sweep not caching enough B-Tree leaf pages?
Previous Message Peter Geoghegan 2014-04-22 01:16:59 Re: Perfomance degradation 9.3 (vs 9.2) for FreeBSD