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-teXU+OVke7gtZy7vOq5bA+Ei57Ze-F3QzJ-eV6bdkO=A@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread
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 Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 11:44 AM, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote:
By looking at the results with scale factor 1000 and 100 i don't see any reason why it will regress with scale factor 300.

So I will run the test again with scale factor 300 and this time i am planning to run 2 cases.
1. when data fits in shared buffer
2. when data doesn't fit in shared buffer.

I have run the test again with 300 S.F and found no regression, in fact there is improvement with the patch like we saw with 1000 scale factor.

Shared Buffer= 8GB        
max_connections=150        
Scale Factor=300                
        
./pgbench  -j$ -c$ -T300 -M prepared -S postgres        
        
Client    Base    Patch
1    19744    19382
8    125923    126395
32    313931    333351
64    387339    496830
128    306412    350610
        
Shared Buffer= 512MB        
max_connections=150        
Scale Factor=300    
        
./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


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

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andreas Karlsson
Date:
Subject: Re: Generalizing SortSupport for text to work with char(n), bytea, and alternative opclasses
Next
From: Fujii Masao
Date:
Subject: Re: Several problems in tab-completions for SET/RESET