Received: from localhost (maia-5.hub.org [200.46.204.182]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82FF19FB643 for ; Wed, 7 Mar 2007 14:49:02 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.182]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 74341-10 for ; Wed, 7 Mar 2007 14:48:54 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.4 Received: from cronos.madness.at (madness.at [217.196.146.217]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A8DA9FB5C6 for ; Wed, 7 Mar 2007 14:48:55 -0400 (AST) Received: from mastermind.kaltenbrunner.cc ([83.215.233.60]) by cronos.madness.at with esmtpsa (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1HP1Fj-00047O-Mo; Wed, 07 Mar 2007 19:52:49 +0100 Message-ID: <45EF090C.6070503@kaltenbrunner.cc> Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2007 19:48:44 +0100 From: Stefan Kaltenbrunner User-Agent: Icedove 1.5.0.9 (X11/20061220) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tom Lane CC: Arjen van der Meijden , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [kris@obsecurity.org: Progress on scaling of FreeBSD on 8 CPU systems] References: <20070227182621.GE29041@decibel.org> <20070302150129.GF4885@alvh.no-ip.org> <45E84790.6050609@tweakers.net> <45EBF658.30907@tweakers.net> <45EC02B4.2070409@kaltenbrunner.cc> <45EC0443.1070107@tweakers.net> <45EC7AC3.2030408@kaltenbrunner.cc> <22074.1173127131@sss.pgh.pa.us> In-Reply-To: <22074.1173127131@sss.pgh.pa.us> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.94.2.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.073 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL, BAYES_40, FORGED_RCVD_HELO X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200703/158 X-Sequence-Number: 23563 Tom Lane wrote: > Stefan Kaltenbrunner writes: >> Arjen van der Meijden wrote: >>> Stefan Kaltenbrunner wrote: >>>> ouch - do I read that right that even after tom's fixes for the >>>> "regressions" in 8.2.0 we are still 30% slower then the -HEAD checkout >>>> from the middle of the 8.2 development cycle ? >>> Yes, and although I tested about 17 different cvs-checkouts, Tom and I >>> weren't really able to figure out where "it" happened. So its a bit of a >>> mystery why the performance is so much worse. > >> double ouch - losing that much in performance without an idea WHY it >> happened is really unfortunate :-( > > Keep in mind that Arjen's test exercises some rather narrow scenarios; > IIRC its performance is mostly determined by some complicated > bitmap-indexscan cases. So that "30% slower" bit certainly doesn't > represent an across-the-board figure. As best I can tell, the decisions > the planner happened to be making in late June were peculiarly nicely > suited to his test, but not so much for other cases. understood - I was not trying to imply that we suffer a 30% performance drop overall. But still it means we know about a set of queries that we once could handle faster than we can now ... Stefan