Hi,
On 2021-05-21 18:17:01 +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> OK, so here are the flamegraphs, for all three cases - current master,
> 0c7d3bb99 (i.e. before heap_insert changes) and with the pinning patch
> applied. I did this using the same test case as before (50M table), but with
> -fno-omit-frame-pointer to get better profiles. It may add some overhead,
> but hopefully that applies to all cases equally.
>
> The first 10 runs for each case look like this:
>
> old master patched
> ----------------------
> 55045 74284 58246
> 53927 74283 57273
> 54090 74114 57336
> 54194 74059 57223
> 54189 74186 57287
> 54090 74113 57278
> 54095 74036 57176
> 53896 74215 57303
> 54101 74060 57524
> 54062 74021 57278
> ----------------------
> 54168 74137 57392
> 1.36x 1.05x
>
> which is mostly in line with previous findings (the master overhead is a bit
> worse, possibly due to the frame pointers).
>
> Attached are the flame graphs for all three cases. The change in master is
> pretty clearly visible, but I don't see any clear difference between old and
> patched code :-(
I'm pretty sure it's the additional WAL records?
Greetings,
Andres Freund