| From: | Marko Kreen <markokr(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>, Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: 8.4 open item: copy performance regression? |
| Date: | 2009-06-19 13:59:02 |
| Message-ID: | e51f66da0906190659k36bf08d1u225a83276299b470@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 6/19/09, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote:
> Kevin Grittner wrote:
> > 8.3.7
> > real 0m24.249s
> > real 0m24.054s
> > real 0m24.361s
> > 8.4rc1
> > real 0m33.503s
> > real 0m34.198s
> > real 0m33.931s
>
> Ugh. This looks like a poster child case for a benchfarm ...
>
> Is there any chance you guys could triangulate this a bit? Good initial
> triangulation points might be the end of each commitfest. (I have a vested
> interest in making sure COPY performance doesn't regress, since it will
> affect parallel restore's speed in spades.)
git bisect?
--
marko
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stefan Kaltenbrunner | 2009-06-19 14:52:39 | Re: 8.4 open item: copy performance regression? |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2009-06-19 13:53:36 | Re: 8.4 open item: copy performance regression? |