On 09/29/2016 01:59 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 6:45 PM, Tomas Vondra
> <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> So, is 300 too little? I don't think so, because Dilip saw some benefit from
>> that. Or what scale factor do we think is needed to reproduce the benefit?
>> My machine has 256GB of ram, so I can easily go up to 15000 and still keep
>> everything in RAM. But is it worth it?
>
> Dunno. But it might be worth a test or two at, say, 5000, just to
> see if that makes any difference.
>
OK, I have some benchmarks to run on that machine, but I'll do a few
tests with scale 5000 - probably sometime next week. I don't think the
delay matters very much, as it's clear the patch will end up with RwF in
this CF round.
> I feel like we must be missing something here. If Dilip is seeing
> huge speedups and you're seeing nothing, something is different, and
> we don't know what it is. Even if the test case is artificial, it
> ought to be the same when one of you runs it as when the other runs
> it. Right?
>
Yes, definitely - we're missing something important, I think. One
difference is that Dilip is using longer runs, but I don't think that's
a problem (as I demonstrated how stable the results are).
I wonder what CPU model is Dilip using - I know it's x86, but not which
generation it is. I'm using E5-4620 v1 Xeon, perhaps Dilip is using a
newer model and it makes a difference (although that seems unlikely).
regards
--
Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services