Re: basic pgbench runs with various performance-related patches
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: basic pgbench runs with various performance-related patches |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+TgmoYF1rsRGH1OE7BJ_=t0MRZ3pCo7Dtvnkd4489ONs3aWNQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: basic pgbench runs with various performance-related patches (Greg Smith <greg@2ndQuadrant.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 11:59 AM, Greg Smith <greg@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > On 01/24/2012 08:58 AM, Robert Haas wrote: >> >> One somewhat odd thing about these numbers is that, on permanent >> tables, all of the patches seemed to show regressions vs. master in >> single-client throughput. That's a slightly difficult result to >> believe, though, so it's probably a testing artifact of some kind. > > It looks like you may have run the ones against master first, then the ones > applying various patches. The one test artifact I have to be very careful > to avoid in that situation is that later files on the physical disk are > slower than earlier ones. There's a >30% differences between the fastest > part of a regular hard drive, the logical beginning, and its end. Multiple > test runs tend to creep forward onto later sections of disk, and be biased > toward the earlier run in that case. To eliminate that bias when it gets > bad, I normally either a) run each test 3 times, interleaved, or b) rebuild > the filesystem in between each initdb. > > I'm not sure that's the problem you're running into, but it's the only one > I've been hit by that matches the suspicious part of your results. I don't think that's it, because tests on various branches were interleaved; moreover, I don't believe master was the first one in the rotation. I think I had then in alphabetical order by branch name, actually. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: