From: David Bremner Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2016 01:14:24 +0000 (+2100) Subject: Re: slowdown in notmuch perf suite with xapian 1.3.5 X-Git-Url: http://git.tremily.us/?a=commitdiff_plain;h=9c85e88172e5cce5d608da9cbcc34ce5a52f3346;p=notmuch-archives.git Re: slowdown in notmuch perf suite with xapian 1.3.5 --- diff --git a/77/8f943c4e71e051c5aa6d5fe902fdfc64b0e487 b/77/8f943c4e71e051c5aa6d5fe902fdfc64b0e487 new file mode 100644 index 000000000..d3255953b --- /dev/null +++ b/77/8f943c4e71e051c5aa6d5fe902fdfc64b0e487 @@ -0,0 +1,98 @@ +Return-Path: +X-Original-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org +Delivered-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org +Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) + by arlo.cworth.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 590F56DE02B5 + for ; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 18:14:36 -0700 (PDT) +X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at cworth.org +X-Spam-Flag: NO +X-Spam-Score: -0.02 +X-Spam-Level: +X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.02 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.009, + SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=disabled +Received: from arlo.cworth.org ([127.0.0.1]) + by localhost (arlo.cworth.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) + with ESMTP id yW41mXuYw6UY for ; + Thu, 7 Apr 2016 18:14:27 -0700 (PDT) +Received: from fethera.tethera.net (fethera.tethera.net [198.245.60.197]) + by arlo.cworth.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8E5E86DE0134 + for ; Thu, 7 Apr 2016 18:14:26 -0700 (PDT) +Received: from remotemail by fethera.tethera.net with local (Exim 4.84) + (envelope-from ) + id 1aoL0N-0000dI-M9; Thu, 07 Apr 2016 21:14:35 -0400 +Received: (nullmailer pid 2722 invoked by uid 1000); + Fri, 08 Apr 2016 01:14:24 -0000 +From: David Bremner +To: Olly Betts +Cc: notmuch@notmuchmail.org, xapian-discuss@lists.xapian.org +Subject: Re: slowdown in notmuch perf suite with xapian 1.3.5 +In-Reply-To: <20160408005725.GA3037@survex.com> +References: <87twjd639d.fsf@zancas.localnet> + <20160407232537.GB29434@survex.com> <87h9fd53vo.fsf@zancas.localnet> + <20160408005725.GA3037@survex.com> +User-Agent: Notmuch/0.21+99~gd93d377 (http://notmuchmail.org) Emacs/24.5.1 + (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) +Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2016 22:14:24 -0300 +Message-ID: <87egag6gwf.fsf@zancas.localnet> +MIME-Version: 1.0 +Content-Type: text/plain +X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org +X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 +Precedence: list +List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system." + +List-Unsubscribe: , + +List-Archive: +List-Post: +List-Help: +List-Subscribe: , + +X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2016 01:14:36 -0000 + +Olly Betts writes: + +> Non-cached reads/writes are arguably the most useful sort to measure, but the +> reads at least will be sensitive to OS caching, which means a repeat run will +> generally show lower numbers of reads, e.g.: +> +> $ /usr/bin/time -f '%I/%O' wc randomfile +> 240 2908 96780 randomfile +> 192/0 +> $ /usr/bin/time -f '%I/%O' wc randomfile +> 240 2908 96780 randomfile +> 0/0 +> +> So those numbers may not be entirely comparable, depending what order your +> tests were done in, and whether you'd run the tests (or cloned the repo or some +> other operation which read or wrote the files used) recently enough that their +> data might still be cached. + +Here are the number from second glass run. The order was glass / chert / +glass + + +T00-new.sh: Testing notmuch new [0.4 large] + Wall(s) Usr(s) Sys(s) Res(K) In/Out(512B) + Initial notmuch new 920.53 698.96 207.02 245188 3528/22442096 + notmuch new #2 0.55 0.00 0.01 8048 6960/160 + notmuch new #3 0.01 0.00 0.00 8112 0/8 + notmuch new #4 0.01 0.01 0.00 8136 0/8 + notmuch new #5 0.01 0.00 0.00 8140 0/8 + notmuch new #6 0.01 0.00 0.00 8116 0/8 + +T01-dump-restore.sh: Testing dump and restore [0.4 large] + Wall(s) Usr(s) Sys(s) Res(K) In/Out(512B) + load nmbug tags 8.89 4.23 3.88 11648 368/40072 + dump * 7.37 6.29 1.08 25268 72/27928 + restore * 7.60 7.16 0.43 8624 0/0 + +T02-tag.sh: Testing tagging [0.4 large] + Wall(s) Usr(s) Sys(s) Res(K) In/Out(512B) + tag * +new_tag 474.16 274.89 191.52 34820 16/1920240 + tag * +existing_tag 0.01 0.01 0.00 8480 152/0 + tag * -existing_tag 438.62 239.02 195.44 34928 0/1970160 + tag * -missing_tag 0.00 0.00 0.00 8264 0/0 + +It's a bit faster overall, but not radically so. So I think cache +effects are not the main issue here.