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-uoToTt+BpASbFds_HFRbzhP2=SWeYjMHLkT_tu8tWAkQ@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>)
Re: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
List pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 2:28 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
Hm, interesting. I suspect that's because of the missing backoff in my
experimental patch. If you apply the attached patch ontop of that
(requires infrastructure from pinunpin), how does performance develop?

I have applied this patch also, but still results are same, I mean around 550,000 with 64 threads and 650,000 with 128 client with lot of fluctuations..

128 client     (head+0001-WIP-Avoid-the-use-of-a-separate-spinlock-to-protect +pinunpin-cas-9+backoff)

run1 645769
run2 643161
run3 285546
run4 289421
run5 630772
run6 284363



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

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Simon Riggs
Date:
Subject: Re: Combining Aggregates
Next
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2