Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.183]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E18F664FE9D for ; Sun, 7 Dec 2008 22:09:03 -0400 (AST) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.183]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 11425-01 for ; Sun, 7 Dec 2008 22:09:00 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from is.rice.edu (is.rice.edu [128.42.42.24]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A472F64FD30 for ; Sun, 7 Dec 2008 22:09:00 -0400 (AST) Received: from scan1.mail.rice.edu (scan1.mail.rice.edu [128.42.58.160]) by is.rice.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB7F64181D; Sun, 7 Dec 2008 20:08:57 -0600 (CST) Received: from is.rice.edu ([128.42.42.24]) by scan1.mail.rice.edu (scan1.mail.rice.edu [128.42.58.160]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 27326-02; Sun, 7 Dec 2008 20:08:57 -0600 (CST) Received: by is.rice.edu (Postfix, from userid 18612) id 3C24041819; Sun, 7 Dec 2008 20:08:57 -0600 (CST) Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2008 20:08:56 -0600 From: Kenneth Marshall To: Josh Berkus Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Need help with 8.4 Performance Testing Message-ID: <20081208020856.GA24658@it.is.rice.edu> References: <200812071138.01215.josh@agliodbs.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200812071138.01215.josh@agliodbs.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-09) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavis-2.2.1 at scan1.mail.rice.edu X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=none X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200812/51 X-Sequence-Number: 32087 Josh, Since a number of these performance patches use our hash function, would it make sense to apply the last patch to upgrade the hash function mix() to the two function mix()/final()? Since the additional changes increases the performance of the hash function by another 50% or so. My two cents. Regards, Ken On Sun, Dec 07, 2008 at 11:38:01AM -0800, Josh Berkus wrote: > Database performance geeks, > > We have a number of patches pending for 8.4 designed to improve database > performance in a variety of circumstances. We need as many users as possible > to build test versions of PostgreSQL with these patches, and test how well > they perform, and report back in some detail. > > Particularly, users with unusual hardware architectures (16 or more cores, > ARM, Power, SSD, NFS-mounted data) or operating systems (Solaris, OSX, > Windows-64) are really helpful. Testers need to be familiar with building > PostgreSQL from source and patching it, as well as basic PostgreSQL Tuning > (except for the Wizard Patch) and have some kind of performance test > available, ideally something based on your own application use. > > If you are going to use pgbench to test, *please* read Greg Smith's notes > first: > http://www.westnet.com/~gsmith/gregsmith/content/postgresql/pgbench-scaling.htm > > The Wiki (http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/CommitFest_2008-11) has a full list > of patches, but below are the ones in particular we could use help with. > > You *do* need to read the entire mail threads which I link to below to > understand the patches. Thanks for your help! > > Proposal of PITR performance improvement (Koichi Suzuki): > http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/a778a7260811270404g49254640x8ed58b12b7c65d0b@mail.gmail.com > http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/a778a7260810280033n43f70d36x8c437eacf9a5461e@mail.gmail.com > > Simple postgresql.conf wizard > http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/Pine.GSO.4.64.0811012101220.17619@westnet.com > http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/Pine.GSO.4.64.0811291403040.12885@westnet.com > > Improve Performance of Multi-Batch Hash Join for Skewed Data Sets > http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/6EEA43D22289484890D119821101B1DF2C1683@exchange20.mercury.ad.ubc.ca > http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/1924d1180811051606w19aaf30du589e8ea10ea5534d@mail.gmail.com > http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/22901.1227228246@sss.pgh.pa.us > > Window Functions > http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/e08cc0400810270912u49a6ec83vc23984c01f368f76@mail.gmail.com > http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/492D1246.5070101@enterprisedb.com > http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/839FB90FF49D4120B7107ED0D7B3E5B6@amd64 > > parallel restore > (especially need to test on 16+ cores) > http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/490878AC.1@dunslane.net > > B-Tree emulation for GIN > http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/491B1888.9020903@sigaev.ru > http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/Pine.LNX.4.64.0811191828050.7862@sn.sai.msu.ru > > Also, the following patches currently still have bugs, but when the bugs are > fixed I'll be looking for performance testers, so please either watch the > wiki or watch this space: > > -- Block-level CRC checks (Alvaro Herrera) > -- Auto Partitioning Patch (Nikhil Sontakke) > -- posix_fadvise (Gregory Stark) > -- Hash Join-Filter Pruning using Bloom Filters > -- On-disk bitmap indexes > > Please report your results, with the patchname in the subject line, on this > mailing list or on -hackers. Thank you, and your help will get a better 8.4 > out sooner. > > -- > Josh Berkus > PostgreSQL > San Francisco > > -- > Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance >