On Thu, Oct 1, 2020 at 8:11 AM tsunakawa.ta...@fujitsu.com <tsunakawa.ta...@fujitsu.com> wrote: > > From: Jamison, Kirk/ジャミソン カーク <k.jami...@fujitsu.com> > > Recovery performance measurement results below. > > But it seems there are overhead even with large shared buffers. > > > > | s_b | master | patched | %reg | > > |-------|--------|---------|-------| > > | 128MB | 36.052 | 39.451 | 8.62% | > > | 1GB | 21.731 | 21.73 | 0.00% | > > | 20GB | 24.534 | 25.137 | 2.40% | > > | 100GB | 30.54 | 31.541 | 3.17% | > > Did you really check that the optimization path is entered and the > traditional path is never entered? >
I have one idea for performance testing. We can even test this for non-recovery paths by removing the recovery-related check like only use it when there are cached blocks. You can do this if testing via recovery path is difficult because at the end performance should be same for recovery and non-recovery paths. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
