On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 4:57 AM, Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: >> I'm looking at alternative options, because this is not terribly >> helpful. With those big caveats in mind, consider the results of the >> benchmark, which show the patch performing somewhat worse than the >> master baseline at higher client counts: > > I think that's actually something else. I'd tried to make some > definitions simpler, and that has, at least for the machine I have > occasional access to, pessimized things. I can't always run the tests > there, so I hadn't noticed before the repost.
I should have been clearer on one point: The pre-rebased patch (actual patch series) [1] was applied on top of a commit from around the same period, in order to work around the bit rot. However, I tested the most recent revision from your git remote on the AWS instance. [1] http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20131115194725.gg5...@awork2.anarazel.de -- Peter Geoghegan -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
