Request a Demo
Home   >   mailing lists

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

From Dilip Kumar
Subject Re: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics
Date
Msg-id CAFiTN-s1XQ3GfzMCsqAxxtKSwtyTuSrCE-_KxMpJF4EG9FLucg@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
Tree view

On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 11:05 AM, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote:
And this latest result (no regression) is on X86 but on my local machine.

I did not exactly saw what this new version of patch is doing different, so I will test this version in other machines also and see the results.

I tested this on PPC again, This time in various order (sometime patch first and then base first).
 I tested with latest patch pinunpin-cas-2.patch on Power8.

Shared Buffer = 8GB
./pgbench  -j$ -c$ -T300 -M prepared -S postgres

BASE
-----
Clients    run1    run2    run3
1           21200    18754    20537
2           40331    39520    38746
           

Patch
-----
Clients    run1    run2        run3
1           20225    19806    19778
2           39830    41898    36620

I think, here we can not see any regression, (If I take median then it may looks low with patch so posting all 3 reading).

Note: reverted only ac1d794 commit in my test.

--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: WIP: Upper planner pathification
Next
From: Tom Browder
Date:
Subject: Static code checker research worth investigating (Communications of the ACM, 03/2016, Vol. 59, No. 03, p. 99)