Re: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics
| От | Amit Kapila |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAA4eK1LNLRWOt4tq5j2pkacJ94a3S_DkaFdjEN3x7Wp5EZiobQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 1:13 AM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
On 2016-04-09 22:38:31 +0300, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
> There are results with 5364b357 reverted.
What exactly is this test?
I think assuming it is a read-only -M prepared pgbench run where data fits in shared buffers. However if you can share exact details, then I can try the similar test.
Crazy that this has such a negative impact. Amit, can you reproduce
that?
I will try it.
Alexander, I guess for r/w workload 5364b357 is a benefit on that
machine as well?
I also think so. Alexander, if try read-write workload with unlogged tables, then we should see an improvement.
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: