Josh, Since a number of these performance patches use our hash function, would it make sense to apply the last patch to upgrade the hash function mix() to the two function mix()/final()? Since the additional changes increases the performance of the hash function by another 50% or so. My two cents. Regards, Ken On Sun, Dec 07, 2008 at 11:38:01AM -0800, Josh Berkus wrote: > Database performance geeks, > > We have a number of patches pending for 8.4 designed to improve database > performance in a variety of circumstances. We need as many users as possible > to build test versions of PostgreSQL with these patches, and test how well > they perform, and report back in some detail. > > Particularly, users with unusual hardware architectures (16 or more cores, > ARM, Power, SSD, NFS-mounted data) or operating systems (Solaris, OSX, > Windows-64) are really helpful. Testers need to be familiar with building > PostgreSQL from source and patching it, as well as basic PostgreSQL Tuning > (except for the Wizard Patch) and have some kind of performance test > available, ideally something based on your own application use. > > If you are going to use pgbench to test, *please* read Greg Smith's notes > first: > http://www.westnet.com/~gsmith/gregsmith/content/postgresql/pgbench-scaling.htm > > The Wiki (http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/CommitFest_2008-11) has a full list > of patches, but below are the ones in particular we could use help with. > > You *do* need to read the entire mail threads which I link to below to > understand the patches. Thanks for your help! > > Proposal of PITR performance improvement (Koichi Suzuki): > http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/a778a7260811270404g49254640x8ed58b12b7c65d0b@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/a778a7260810280033n43f70d36x8c437eacf9a5461e@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Simple postgresql.conf wizard > http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/Pine.GSO.4.64.0811012101220.17619@xxxxxxxxxxx > http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/Pine.GSO.4.64.0811291403040.12885@xxxxxxxxxxx > > Improve Performance of Multi-Batch Hash Join for Skewed Data Sets > http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/6EEA43D22289484890D119821101B1DF2C1683@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/1924d1180811051606w19aaf30du589e8ea10ea5534d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/22901.1227228246@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Window Functions > http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/e08cc0400810270912u49a6ec83vc23984c01f368f76@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/492D1246.5070101@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/839FB90FF49D4120B7107ED0D7B3E5B6@amd64 > > parallel restore > (especially need to test on 16+ cores) > http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/490878AC.1@xxxxxxxxxxxx > > B-Tree emulation for GIN > http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/491B1888.9020903@xxxxxxxxx > http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/Pine.LNX.4.64.0811191828050.7862@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Also, the following patches currently still have bugs, but when the bugs are > fixed I'll be looking for performance testers, so please either watch the > wiki or watch this space: > > -- Block-level CRC checks (Alvaro Herrera) > -- Auto Partitioning Patch (Nikhil Sontakke) > -- posix_fadvise (Gregory Stark) > -- Hash Join-Filter Pruning using Bloom Filters > -- On-disk bitmap indexes > > Please report your results, with the patchname in the subject line, on this > mailing list or on -hackers. Thank you, and your help will get a better 8.4 > out sooner. > > -- > Josh Berkus > PostgreSQL > San Francisco > > -- > Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) > To make changes to your subscription: > http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance > -- Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
