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+ZW39LmP_AA0uH+oJ_=FtQR3WQey02RqrzHD6VoETAHQ@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
List pgsql-hackers
On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 9:05 PM, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 5:14 AM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
>>
>> > > > >> ./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?
>
>
> In Multi socket machine with 8 sockets and 64 cores, I have seen more regression compared to my previous run in power8 with 2 socket, currently I tested Read only workload for 5 mins Run, When I get time, I will run for longer time and confirm again.
>

Have you tried by reverting the commits 6150a1b0 and ac1d794, which I think effects read-only performance and sometimes create variation in TPS across different runs, here second might have less impact, but first one could impact performance?  Is it possible for you to get perf data with and without patch and share with others?


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

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Vitaly Burovoy
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATH] Correct negative/zero year in to_date/to_timestamp
Next
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: exposing pg_controldata and pg_config as functions