New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
walredo: simple tests and bench updates #3045
Conversation
In current
In OLTP benchmark with
Setup for this was plain empty |
3eb01d1
to
893fd28
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm probably not the best fit for reviewing walredo stuff, since I was not heavily involved in recent discussions. So I think someone else needs to have a look. To me looks reasonable
Thanks! These do work fine as is test cases for #2947 so I am inclined to merge them as is. Asking for another reviewer. |
Should had rebased, doing it now... |
9870c00
to
8e00726
Compare
8e00726
to
31e1d32
Compare
Rebased on top of main. |
Ok, had forgotten this, thought it had already been merged. Let's see what the conflict is. |
adds pageserver/fixtures for the page image.
also reuse threads between runs for less noise in profiling.
less warnings.
it seems that we get much more stable values and less warnings out of criterion this way.
31e1d32
to
436fd6b
Compare
Separated from #2875.
The microbenchmark has been validated to show similar difference as to larger scale OLTP benchmark.