Mailing-List: contact derby-dev-help@db.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: <derby-dev@db.apache.org>
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: local policy)
From: Knut Anders Hatlen <knut.hatlen@oracle.com>
To: derby-dev@db.apache.org
Subject: Re: 10.8.1 testing
References: <4DB6BF38.2050506@oracle.com>
	<BANLkTinM0tNRKBBaT1vQuYd=EWnnsZV3iQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 12:43:51 +0200
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTinM0tNRKBBaT1vQuYd=EWnnsZV3iQ@mail.gmail.com> (Myrna van
	Lunteren's message of "Tue, 26 Apr 2011 10:38:33 -0700")
Message-ID: <x6tydkoty0.fsf@oracle.com>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.110016 (No Gnus v0.16) Emacs/23.1 (usg-unix-v)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

Myrna van Lunteren <m.v.lunteren@gmail.com> writes:

> I don't intend to do any performance tests at this point - is anyone
> else doing any?

I've been keeping an eye on the nightly performance tests on trunk
(http://home.online.no/~olmsan/derby/perf/) and haven't noticed any big
changes after 10.7. I'd expect the performance of 10.8 to be very close
to trunk, but I've started some of the test clients on the RC just in
case.

The performance changes I have noticed lately are:

1) DERBY-5068 - higher CPU usage on the client after the introduction of
UTF-8 CcsidManager. I'm planning to look into it to see where the extra
CPU is spent. But this happened before 10.7.1.1 and shouldn't be a
blocker for the 10.8 release.

2) The full table scans in the nightly test, as well as the TPC-B like
transactions, seem to have been running slightly slower the last two
months (see http://home.online.no/~olmsan/derby/perf/tpcb_1y.html and
http://home.online.no/~olmsan/derby/perf/select_sec_noindex_1y.html). It
may be worth looking into if this is an actual degradation or just
noise. But even if it turns out that it is a real performance
degradation, it appears to be so small that it wouldn't be worth
blocking the release.

-- 
Knut Anders