Re: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics
От | Andres Freund |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 20151109221013.GH32209@alap3.anarazel.de обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics (Jesper Pedersen <jesper.pedersen@redhat.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 2015-11-09 11:54:59 -0500, Jesper Pedersen wrote: > Hi, > > On 11/06/2015 03:47 PM, Jesper Pedersen wrote: > >>Did you initdb between tests? Pgbench -i? Restart the database? > > > >I didn't initdb / pgbench -i between the tests, so that it is likely it. > > > > Each graph has a full initdb + pgbench -i cycle now. That looks about as we'd expect: the lock-free pinning doesn't matter and ssynchronous commit is beneficial. I think our bottlenecks in write workloads are sufficiently elsewhere that it's unlikely that buffer pins make a lot of difference. You could try a readonly pgbench workload (i.e. -S), to see whether a difference is visible there. For a pgbench -S workload it's more likely that you only see significant contention on larger machines. If you've a workload that touches more cached buffers, it'd be visible earlier. > I know, I have a brown paper bag somewhere. Why? This looks as expected, and the issues from the previous run were easy to make mistakes? Greetings, Andres Freund
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: