Re: Wait free LW_SHARED acquisition - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Christian Kruse
Subject Re: Wait free LW_SHARED acquisition
Date
Msg-id 20140204193904.GB1361@defunct.ch
Whole thread Raw
In response to Wait free LW_SHARED acquisition  (Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: Wait free LW_SHARED acquisition  (Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com>)
Re: Wait free LW_SHARED acquisition  (Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com>)
Re: Wait free LW_SHARED acquisition  (Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Hi,

I'm doing some benchmarks regarding this problem: one set with
baseline and one set with your patch. Machine was a 32 core machine (4
CPUs with 8 cores), 252 gib RAM. Both versions have the type align
patch applied. pgbench-tools config:

SCALES="100"
SETCLIENTS="1 4 8 16 32 48 64 96 128"
SETTIMES=2

I added -M prepared to the pgbench call in the benchwarmer script.

The read-only tests are finished, I come to similiar results as yours:

<http://wwwtech.de/pg/benchmarks-lwlock-read-only/>

I think the small differences are caused by the fact that I use TCP
connections and not Unix domain sockets.

The results are pretty impressive… I will post the read-write results
as soon as they are finished.

Best regards,

-- Christian Kruse               http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: PQputCopyData dont signal error
Next
From: Peter Geoghegan
Date:
Subject: Re: Wait free LW_SHARED acquisition