F.Y.I. here is the results I did on my laptop (Ubuntu 14, i7-4600U,
16GB mem, 512GB SSD). Unlike Josh, I used Unix domain sockets. In
summary:
9.4.3: 943.439840
9.4.4: 429.953953
9.4 stable as of June 30: 929.804491
So comparing with 9.4.3, 9.4.4 is 54% slow, and 9.4-stable is 1.4% slow.
I think
On 6/25/15 12:51 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
On 06/25/2015 10:47 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 2:52 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
OK, this is pretty bad in its real performance effects. On a workload
which is dominated by new connection creation, we've lost about 17%
throughput.
Mi
On 06/25/2015 11:04 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Josh Berkus writes:
>> On 06/25/2015 08:12 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> I can't see doing a release just for this. If we were due for releases
>>> anyway, sure, but we've considerably overstressed our poor packagers of
>>> late. Previous discussion was to the
Josh Berkus writes:
> On 06/25/2015 08:12 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I can't see doing a release just for this. If we were due for releases
>> anyway, sure, but we've considerably overstressed our poor packagers of
>> late. Previous discussion was to the effect that we'd anticipate another
>> set of
On 06/25/2015 10:47 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 2:52 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
>> OK, this is pretty bad in its real performance effects. On a workload
>> which is dominated by new connection creation, we've lost about 17%
>> throughput.
>
> Mistakes happen, but this is the
On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 2:52 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> OK, this is pretty bad in its real performance effects. On a workload
> which is dominated by new connection creation, we've lost about 17%
> throughput.
Mistakes happen, but this is the kind of regression that automated
performance testing c
On 06/25/2015 08:12 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Tatsuo Ishii writes:
That means that load_relcache_init_file *always* decides that the init
file is busted and silently(!) ignores it. So we're taking a nontrivial
hit in backend startup speed as of the last set of minor releases.
>
>>> OK
Tatsuo Ishii writes:
>>> That means that load_relcache_init_file *always* decides that the init
>>> file is busted and silently(!) ignores it. So we're taking a nontrivial
>>> hit in backend startup speed as of the last set of minor releases.
>> OK, this is pretty bad in its real performance eff
> On 06/23/2015 04:44 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Chasing a problem identified by my Salesforce colleagues led me to the
>> conclusion that my commit f3b5565dd ("Use a safer method for determining
>> whether relcache init file is stale") is rather borked. It causes
>> pg_trigger_tgrelid_tgname_index to
On 06/23/2015 04:44 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Chasing a problem identified by my Salesforce colleagues led me to the
> conclusion that my commit f3b5565dd ("Use a safer method for determining
> whether relcache init file is stale") is rather borked. It causes
> pg_trigger_tgrelid_tgname_index to be om
Chasing a problem identified by my Salesforce colleagues led me to the
conclusion that my commit f3b5565dd ("Use a safer method for determining
whether relcache init file is stale") is rather borked. It causes
pg_trigger_tgrelid_tgname_index to be omitted from the relcache init file,
because that
11 matches
Mail list logo
