On Wed, Jan 16, 2019 at 9:25 AM Mithun Cy <mithun...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 3:54 AM John Naylor <john.nay...@2ndquadrant.com> > wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 10:50 PM Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Thanks, Mithun for performance testing, it really helps us to choose > > > the right strategy here. Once John provides next version, it would be > > > good to see the results of regular pgbench (read-write) runs (say at > > > 50 and 300 scale factor) and the results of large copy. I don't think > > > there will be any problem, but we should just double check that. > > > > Attached is v12 using the alternating-page strategy. I've updated the > > comments and README as needed. In addition, I've > > > execution time in ms. (scale factor indicates size of pgbench_accounts) > scale factor v12-patch base patch % diff > 300 77166.407 77862.041 -0.8934186557 > 50 13329.233 13284.583 0.3361038882 > > So for large table tests do not show any considerable performance variance > from base code! >
I think with these results, we can conclude this patch doesn't seem to have any noticeable regression for all the tests we have done, right? Thanks a lot for doing various performance tests. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
