On Fri, Aug 11, 2023 at 12:54 AM Melih Mutlu <m.melihmu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Peter and Vignesh,
>
> Peter Smith <smithpb2...@gmail.com>, 7 Ağu 2023 Pzt, 09:25 tarihinde şunu
> yazdı:
>>
>> Hi Melih.
>>
>> Now that the design#1 ERRORs have been fixed, we returned to doing
>> performance measuring of the design#1 patch versus HEAD.
>
>
> Thanks a lot for taking the time to benchmark the patch. It's really helpful.
>
>> Publisher "busy" table does commit every 1000 inserts:
>> 2w 4w 8w 16w
>> HEAD 11898 5855 1868 1631
>> HEAD+v24-0002 21905 8254 3531 1626
>> %improvement -84% -41% -89% 0%
>>
>>
>> ^ Note - design#1 was slower than HEAD here
>>
>>
>> ~
>>
>>
>> Publisher "busy" table does commit every 2000 inserts:
>> 2w 4w 8w 16w
>> HEAD 21740 7109 3454 1703
>> HEAD+v24-0002 21585 10877 4779 2293
>> %improvement 1% -53% -38% -35%
>
>
> I assume you meant HEAD+v26-0002 and not v24. I wanted to quickly reproduce
> these two cases where the patch was significantly worse. Interestingly my
> results are a bit different than yours.
>
No, I meant what I wrote there. When I ran the tests the HEAD included
the v25-0001 refactoring patch, but v26 did not yet exist.
For now, we are only performance testing the first
"Reuse-Tablesyc-Workers" patch, but not yet including the second patch
("Reuse connection when...").
Note that those "Reuse-Tablesyc-Workers" patches v24-0002 and v26-0001
are equivalent because there are only cosmetic log message differences
between them.
So, my testing was with HEAD+v24-0002 (but not including v24-0003).
Your same testing should be with HEAD+v26-0001 (but not including v26-0002).
------
Kind Regards,
Peter Smith.
Fujitsu Australia
