----- Цитат от Robert Haas (robertmhaas@gmail.com), на 25.06.2011 в 00:16 ----- <br /><br />> On Fri, Jun 24, 2011
at3:31 PM, wrote: <br />>> clients beta2 +fastlock +lazyvzid local socket <br />>> 8 76064 92430 92198
106734<br />>> 16 64254 90788 90698 105097 <br />>> 32 56629 88189 88269 101202 <br />>> 64 51124
8435484639 96362 <br />>> 128 45455 79361 79724 90625 <br />>> 256 40370 71904 72737 82434 <br />> <br
/>>I'm having trouble interpreting this table. <br />> <br />> Column 1: # of clients <br />> Column 2: TPS
using9.1beta2 unpatched <br />> Column 3: TPS using 9.1beta2 + fastlock patch <br />> Column 4: TPS using
9.1beta2+ fastlock patch + vxid patch <br />> Column 5: ??? <br /><br />9.1beta2 + fastlock patch + vxid patch ,
pgbenchrun on unix domain <br />socket, the other tests are using local TCP connection. <br /><br />> At any rate,
thatis a big improvement on a system with only 8 cores. <br />> I would have thought you would have needed ~16 cores
toget that much <br />> speedup. I wonder if the -M prepared makes a difference ... I wasn't <br />> using that
option.<br />> <br /><br />Yes, it does make some difference, <br />Using unpatched beta2, 8 clients with simple
protocolI get 57059 tps. <br />With all patches and simple protocol I get 60707 tps. So the difference <br />between
patched/stockis not so big. I suppose the system gets CPU bound <br />on parsing and planning every submitted request.
With-M extended I <br />get even slower results. <br /><br />Luben <br /><br />-- <br />"Perhaps, there is no greater
lovethan that of a <br /> revolutionary couple where each of the two lovers is <br /> ready to abandon the other at any
momentif revolution <br /> demands it." <br /> Zizek
