On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 1:30 AM Tomas Vondra
<tomas.vondra@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>
> On 9/23/21 9:31 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 2:06 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> But I am attaching both the patches in case you want to play around.
> >
> > I don't really see any reason not to commit 0001. Perhaps some very
> > minor grammatical nitpicking is in order here, but apart from that I
> > can't really see anything to criticize with this approach. It seems
> > safe enough, it's not invasive in any way that matters, and we have
> > benchmark results showing that it works well. If someone comes up with
> > something even better, no harm done, we can always change it again.
> >
> > Objections?
>
> Yeah, it seems like a fairly clear win, according to the benchmarks.
>
> I did find some suspicious behavior on the bigger box I have available
> (with 2x xeon e5-2620v3), see the attached spreadsheet. But it seems
> pretty weird because the worst affected case is with no parallel workers
> (so the queue changes should affect it). Not sure how to explain it, but
> the behavior seems consistent.
>
> Anyway, the other machine with a single CPU seems perfectly clean.
Tomas, can you share your test script, I would like to repeat the same
test in my environment and with different batching sizes.
--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com