Re: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics
| От | Amit Kapila |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAA4eK1+SjKOcAmh57Jim3pouC2dx_uvohKKL4JDwgh6_YLM+2Q@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics (Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Apr 3, 2016 at 9:55 AM, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 2:09 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:One interesting thing to do would be to use -P1 during the test and see
how much the performance varies over time.
I have run with -P option, I ran for 1200 second and set -P as 30 second, and what I observed is that when its low its low throughout the run and when its high, Its high for complete run.
What is the conclusion of this test? As far as I see, with the patch (0001-WIP-Avoid-the-use-of-a-separate-spinlock-to-protect), the performance degradation is not fixed, but with pin-unpin patch, the performance seems to be better in most of the runs, however still you see less performance in some of the runs. Is that right? Can you answer some of the questions asked by Andres upthread[1]?
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: