Re: Re: [ADMIN] v7.1b4 bad performance - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Hiroshi Inoue
Subject Re: Re: [ADMIN] v7.1b4 bad performance
Date
Msg-id 3A91AC2F.3471A74@tpf.co.jp
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [ADMIN] v7.1b4 bad performance  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Re: [ADMIN] v7.1b4 bad performance  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue@tpf.co.jp> writes:
> > In your test cases I always see "where bid = 1" at "update branches"
> > i.e.
> >   update branches set bbalance = bbalance + ... where bid = 1
>
> > ISTM there's no multiple COMMIT in your senario-s due to
> > their lock conflicts.
>
> Hmm.  It looks like using a 'scaling factor' larger than 1 is necessary
> to spread out the updates of "branches".  AFAIR, the people who reported
> runs with scaling factors > 1 got pretty much the same results though.
>

People seem to believe your results are decisive
and would raise your results if the evidence is
required.
All clients of pgbench execute the same sequence
of queries. There could be various conflicts e.g.
oridinary lock, buffer lock, IO spinlock ...
I've been suspicious if pgbench is an (unique)
appropiriate test case for evaluaing commit_delay.

Regards,
Hiroshi Inoue

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: enable-debug considered pointless
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Ordering problem with --with-includes