From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: performance-test farm |
Date: | 2011-05-12 14:36:23 |
Message-ID: | 15311.1305210983@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> * Josh Berkus (josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com) wrote:
>> The first problem is plaform performance, which would be a matter of
>> expanding the buildfarm to include a small set of performance tests ...
>> probably ones based on previously known problems, plus some other simple
>> common operations. The goal here would be to test on as many different
>> machines as possible, rather than getting full coverage of peformance.
I think it's a seriously *bad* idea to expect existing buildfarm members
to produce useful performance data. Very few of them are running on
dedicated machines, and some are deliberately configured with
performance-trashing options. (I think just about all of 'em use
--enable-cassert, but there are some with worse things...)
We can probably share a great deal of the existing buildfarm code and
infrastructure, but the actual members of the p-farm will need to be a
separate collection of machines running different builds.
Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> writes:
> imv, we should be trying to include the above in the regression tests,
> presuming that they can be done in that structure and that they can be
> done 'quickly'.
There's no such thing as a useful performance test that runs quickly
enough to be sane to incorporate in our standard regression tests.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | MauMau | 2011-05-12 15:20:50 | Fw: [BUGS] BUG #6011: Some extra messages are output in the event log at PostgreSQL startup |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2011-05-12 13:55:09 | Re: Infinity bsearch crash on Windows |