Postgres Pro
Downloads
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-uFOv-iXtbfToknYPKx-3Hm-T1=yCz=NGFVDj+bHWTc=Q@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  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
List pgsql-hackers
Tree view

On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 5:52 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
Here's a WIP patch to evaluate. Dilip/Ashutosh, could you perhaps run
some benchmarks, to see whether this addresses the performance issues?

I guess it'd both be interesting to compare master with master + patch,
and this thread's latest patch with the patch additionally applied.

I tested it in Power and seen lot of fluctuations in the reading, From this reading I could not reach to any conclusion.
 only we can say that with (patch + pinunpin), we can reach more than 600000.

I think it needs more number of runs.. After seeing this results I did not run head+pinunpin,

Head 64 Client 128 Client
-----------------------------------------------------
Run1 434860 356945
Run2 275815 275815
Run3 437872 366560
Patch 64 Client 128 Client
-----------------------------------------------------
Run1 429520 372958
Run2 446249 167189
Run3 431066 381592
Patch+Pinunpin  64 Client 128 Client
----------------------------------------------------------
Run1 338298 642535
Run2 406240 644187
Run3 595439 285420 

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

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: Incorrect format in error message
Next
From: Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
Date:
Subject: Re: IF (NOT) EXISTS in psql-completion