| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Why we are going to have to go DirectIO |
| Date: | 2013-12-04 04:40:08 |
| Message-ID: | 1386132008.27399.3.camel@vanquo.pezone.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 2013-12-03 at 14:44 -0800, Josh Berkus wrote:
> Would certainly be nice. Realistically, getting good automated
> performace tests will require paying someone like Greg S., Mark or me
> for 6 solid months to develop them, since worthwhile open source
> performance test platforms currently don't exist. That money has
> never been available; maybe I should do a kickstarter.
I think the problem is, it's not even clear what the deliverable might
be. Benchmarking tools exist, and running them on a regular schedule
shouldn't be difficult. But that doesn't find regressions between
kernel versions, for example, or regressions in particular queries
(unless they happen to be included in the benchmark).
The first step here should be to work out the minimum viable product,
and then see what it would take to get that done.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Claudio Freire | 2013-12-04 05:10:20 | Re: Parallel Select query performance and shared buffers |
| Previous Message | KONDO Mitsumasa | 2013-12-04 04:08:38 | Re: Why we are going to have to go DirectIO |