Re: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Andres Freund
Subject Re: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics
Date
Msg-id 20160226234413.hes24u3lczzm5awp@alap3.anarazel.de
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics  (Alexander Korotkov <a.korotkov@postgrespro.ru>)
Responses Re: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics
Re: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics
List pgsql-hackers
On 2016-02-02 13:12:50 +0300, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 12:43 AM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> 
> > On 2016-02-01 13:06:57 +0300, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> > > On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 11:34 AM, Alexander Korotkov <
> > > a.korotkov@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
> > > >> Client    Base    Patch
> > > >> 1    19744    19382
> > > >> 8    125923    126395
> > > >> 32    313931    333351
> > > >> 64    387339    496830
> > > >> 128    306412    350610
> > > >>
> > > >> Shared Buffer= 512MB
> > > >> max_connections=150
> > > >> Scale Factor=300
> > > >>
> > > >> ./pgbench  -j$ -c$ -T300 -M prepared -S postgres
> > > >>
> > > >> Client    Base    Patch
> > > >> 1    17169    16454
> > > >> 8    108547    105559
> > > >> 32    241619    262818
> > > >> 64    206868    233606
> > > >> 128    137084    217013
> >
> > So, there's a small regression on low client counts. That's worth
> > addressing.
> >
> 
> Interesting. I'll try to reproduce it.

Any progress here?

Regards,

Andres



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Simon Riggs
Date:
Subject: Re: The plan for FDW-based sharding
Next
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: Proposal: Generic WAL logical messages