Re: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics
| От | Dilip Kumar |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAFiTN-uFOv-iXtbfToknYPKx-3Hm-T1=yCz=NGFVDj+bHWTc=Q@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 Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 5:52 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
Here's a WIP patch to evaluate. Dilip/Ashutosh, could you perhaps run
some benchmarks, to see whether this addresses the performance issues?
I guess it'd both be interesting to compare master with master + patch,
and this thread's latest patch with the patch additionally applied.
I tested it in Power and seen lot of fluctuations in the reading, From this reading I could not reach to any conclusion.
only we can say that with (patch + pinunpin), we can reach more than 600000.
I think it needs more number of runs.. After seeing this results I did not run head+pinunpin,
Head 64 Client 128 Client
-----------------------------------------------------
Run1 434860 356945
Run2 275815 275815
Run3 437872 366560
Patch 64 Client 128 Client
-----------------------------------------------------
Run1 429520 372958
Run2 446249 167189
Run3 431066 381592
Patch+Pinunpin 64 Client 128 Client
----------------------------------------------------------
Run1 338298 642535
Run2 406240 644187
Run3 595439 285420
--
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: