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

From Amit Kapila
Subject Re: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics
Date
Msg-id CAA4eK1+SjKOcAmh57Jim3pouC2dx_uvohKKL4JDwgh6_YLM+2Q@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics  (Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics  (Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Sun, Apr 3, 2016 at 9:55 AM, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 2:09 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
One interesting thing to do would be to use -P1 during the test and see
how much the performance varies over time.

I have run with -P option, I ran for 1200 second and set -P as 30 second, and what I observed is that when its low its low throughout the run and when its high, Its high for complete run.


What is the conclusion of this test?  As far as I see, with the patch (0001-WIP-Avoid-the-use-of-a-separate-spinlock-to-protect), the performance degradation is not fixed, but with pin-unpin patch, the performance seems to be better in most of the runs, however still you see less performance in some of the runs.  Is that right?   Can you answer some of the questions asked by Andres upthread[1]?




With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Simon Riggs
Date:
Subject: Re: pgbench more operators & functions
Next
From: Julien Rouhaud
Date:
Subject: Re: Choosing parallel_degree