Hi, On 19/11/2020 07:25, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
Performance measurement on the attached showed better result about searching but maybe worse for cache entry creation. Each time number is the mean of 10 runs.# Cacache (negative) entry creation : time(ms) (% to master) master : 3965.61 (100.0) patched-off: 4040.93 (101.9) patched-on : 4032.22 (101.7) # Searching negative cache entries master : 8173.46 (100.0) patched-off: 7983.43 ( 97.7) patched-on : 8049.88 ( 98.5) # Creation, searching and expiration master : 6393.23 (100.0) patched-off: 6527.94 (102.1) patched-on : 15880.01 (248.4) That is, catcache searching gets faster by 2-3% but creation gets slower by about 2%. If I moved the condition of 2 further up to CatalogCacheCreateEntry(), that degradation reduced to 0.6%. # Cacache (negative) entry creation master : 3967.45 (100.0) patched-off : 3990.43 (100.6) patched-on : 4108.96 (103.6) # Searching negative cache entries master : 8106.53 (100.0) patched-off : 8036.61 ( 99.1) patched-on : 8058.18 ( 99.4) # Creation, searching and expiration master : 6395.00 (100.0) patched-off : 6416.57 (100.3) patched-on : 15830.91 (247.6)
Can you share the exact script or steps to reproduce these numbers? I presume these are from the catcachebench extension, but I can't figure out which scenario above corresponds to which catcachebench test. Also, catcachebench seems to depend on a bunch of tables being created in schema called "test"; what tables did you use for the above numbers?
- Heikki
