On Fri, Feb 21, 2025 at 2:24 PM Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 21, 2025 at 7:57 AM Ajin Cherian <itsajin(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > In these tests, I also see an increased performance with the patch
> > even when all transactions are published. I will investigate why this
> > happens and update.
> >
>
> Yes, it is important to investigate this because in the best case, it
> should match with HEAD. One thing you can verify is whether the
> changes processed on the server are exactly for the published table,
> it shouldn't happen that it is processing both published and
> unpublished changes. If the server is processing for both tables then
> it is expected that the patch performs better. I think you can verify
> before starting each test and after finishing each test whether the
> slot is pointing at the appropriate location for the next test or
> create a new slot for each with the required location.
Yes, you are right, I modified the tests to drop the slot and create a
new slot advance to current_lsn and now I see a fractionally better
performance in head code when all transactions are published.
Graph attached.
regards,
Ajin Cherian
Fujitsu Australia
