Re: Overhead for stats_command_string et al, take 2

From: Mark Kirkwood <markir(at)paradise(dot)net(dot)nz>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org
Subject: Re: Overhead for stats_command_string et al, take 2
Date: 2006-06-23 01:51:38
Message-ID: 449B492A.7030804@paradise.net.nz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

Tom Lane wrote:
> Stefan Kaltenbrunner <stefan(at)kaltenbrunner(dot)cc> writes:
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>> It'd be interesting to compare 8.1 and HEAD for the no-overhead case;
>>> I don't think you need to redo all four cases, but I'd like to see that one.
>
>> 8.1: 50,50,49
>> HEAD: 49,48,49
>
> OK, so that seems comparable to my results on a dual Xeon ... probably,
> both your machine and my newer one have fast-to-read clock hardware.
> We need to get some numbers from one of the people who have complained
> about EXPLAIN ANALYZE overhead.
>

Data from two (identical) dual P-III, one running Linux and one running
Freebsd - both doing the 100000 SELECT 1 test:

Freebsd 6.1:
- 8.1 21.5 (median times)
- HEAD 22.2

Linux 2.6.16
- 8.1 16.1
- HEAD 17.2

The variation in run times seems to be up to 0.5 seconds, so I'm not
sure that I'm seeing a real difference between 8.1 and HEAD (though this
test seems to run noticeably slower on Freebsd - recall from my previous
posting featuring these boxes that EXPLAIN ANALYZE seems to have a
*much* higher overhead on Freebsd).

(8.1 is 8.1.3 on the Freebsd box and 8.1.4 on the linux one. HEAD is
from today).

regards

Mark

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Agent M 2006-06-23 01:56:12 Re: vacuum, performance, and MVCC
Previous Message Tom Lane 2006-06-23 01:49:23 Re: [CORE] GPL Source and Copyright Questions

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2006-06-23 13:23:58 Re: Overhead for stats_command_string et al, take 2
Previous Message Michael Glaesemann 2006-06-23 00:53:31 Re: Interval aggregate regression failure (expected seems