| From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)bowt(dot)ie> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Saul, Jean Paolo" <paolo(dot)saul(at)verizonconnect(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andrew Gierth <andrew(at)tao11(dot)riddles(dot)org(dot)uk>, PostgreSQL mailing lists <pgsql-bugs(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: BUG #15609: synchronous_commit=off insert performance regression with secondary indexes |
| Date: | 2019-02-11 00:44:39 |
| Message-ID: | CAH2-Wznf1uVBguutwrvR+6NcXTKYhagvNOY3-dg9dzcYiu_vKw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
On Sun, Feb 10, 2019 at 3:05 PM Saul, Jean Paolo
<paolo(dot)saul(at)verizonconnect(dot)com> wrote:
> Can anyone please shed some light as to why this works?
> The only thing I could think of is a locking issue with the leaf nodes.
I describe why in the original thread about the problem and my
approach, though it's very low level stuff. See:
/message-id/flat/CAH2-Wzmf0fvVhU+SSZpGW4Qe9t--j_DmXdX3it5JcdB8FF2EsA(at)mail(dot)gmail(dot)com
> How much testing is required for this to be considered a proper bug?
You haven't really demonstrated a substantial regression across
versions (17361.186258 tps on v11, down from 20137.416962 tps on 9.5),
which is the only way that this could get classified as a bug. It's a
*far* smaller difference than the difference that you show between
otherwise-similar high cardinality and low cardinality indexes. In
general, I'm confused about why you're concerned about v11 in
particular here.
--
Peter Geoghegan
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Rowley | 2019-02-11 02:36:17 | Re: BUG #15572: Misleading message reported by "Drop function operation" on DB with functions having same name |
| Previous Message | PG Bug reporting form | 2019-02-10 23:44:46 | BUG #15628: Error while installing postgreSQL |