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 CAA4eK1LNLRWOt4tq5j2pkacJ94a3S_DkaFdjEN3x7Wp5EZiobQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
Responses Re: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics  (Alexander Korotkov <a.korotkov@postgrespro.ru>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 1:13 AM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
On 2016-04-09 22:38:31 +0300, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> There are results with 5364b357 reverted.


What exactly is this test?
I think assuming it is a read-only -M prepared pgbench run where data fits in shared buffers.  However if you can share exact details, then I can try the similar test.
 
Crazy that this has such a negative impact. Amit, can you reproduce
that?

I will try it.
 
Alexander, I guess for r/w workload 5364b357 is a benefit on that
machine as well?

I also think so. Alexander, if try read-write workload with unlogged tables, then we should see an improvement.



With Regards,
Amit Kapila.

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: David Rowley
Date:
Subject: Re: Performance improvement for joins where outer side is unique
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Some other things about contrib/bloom and generic_xlog.c