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-vkMu0P2sRyvt6H9W_C0h=_ewQPf9aLnXC2XtDV7u=-7g@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread
In response to Re: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
Responses Re: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics
List pgsql-hackers
Tree view

On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 5:14 AM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
> > > >> ./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
> >
> > So, there's a small regression on low client counts. That's worth
> > addressing.
> >
>
> Interesting. I'll try to reproduce it.

Any progress here?

In Multi socket machine with 8 sockets and 64 cores, I have seen more regression compared to my previous run in power8 with 2 socket, currently I tested Read only workload for 5 mins Run, When I get time, I will run for longer time and confirm again.

Shared Buffer= 8GB
Scale Factor=300

./pgbench  -j$ -c$ -T300 -M prepared -S postgres
client         base        patch
1               7057         5230
2             10043         9573
4             20140        18188


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

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andrew Dunstan
Date:
Subject: Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Respect TEMP_CONFIG when running contrib regression tests.
Next
From: Simon Riggs
Date:
Subject: Re: The plan for FDW-based sharding