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

From Alexander Korotkov
Subject Re: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics
Date
Msg-id CAPpHfdu+bntYj2q=S4L1sR16q+5jD8Hmqun-6ZG-AThQdr118w@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  (Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Hi, Dilip!

On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 6:00 PM, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 5:44 PM, Michael Paquier <michael.paquier@gmail.com> wrote:
> Test3:
> pgbench -i -s 100 postgres
> pgbench -c$ -j$ -Mprepared -S postgres
>
> Client             Base                      Pached
>
> 1                      20555                    19404
> 32                  375919                  332670
> 64                  509067                  440680
> 128                431346                  415121
> 256                380926                  379176

It seems like you did a copy-paste of the results with s=100 and
s=300. Both are showing the exact same numbers.

Oops, my mistake, re-pasting the correct results for s=100

pgbench -i -s 100 postgres
pgbench -c$ -j$ -Mprepared -S postgres

Client             Base                      Pached

1                    20548                    20791
32                  372633                  355356
64                  532052                  552148
128                412755                  478826
256                 346701                 372057  

Could you please re-run these tests few times?
Just to be sure it's a reproducible regression with s=300 and not a statistical error.

------
Alexander Korotkov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company 

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Pavel Stehule
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] better systemd integration
Next
From: Merlin Moncure
Date:
Subject: Re: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics