Re: Priority table or Cache table
От | Beena Emerson |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Priority table or Cache table |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAOG9ApE4Qu7fuoOEFRUiG0xFZYqNtscNgH2s2O8Q2iGgeoO66A@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Priority table or Cache table (Haribabu Kommi <kommi.haribabu@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Priority table or Cache table
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 9:50 AM, Haribabu Kommi <kommi.haribabu@gmail.com> wrote:
Sorry for the late reply. Thanks for the test.Please find the re-based patch with a temp fix for correcting the problem.
I will a submit a proper patch fix later.
Please note that the new patch still gives assertion error:
TRAP: FailedAssertion("!(buf->freeNext != (-2))", File: "freelist.c", Line: 178)
psql:load_test.sql:5: connection to server was lost
Hence, the patch was installed with assertions off.
I also ran the test script after making the same configuration changes that you have specified. I found that I was not able to get the same performance difference that you have reported.
Following table lists the tps in each scenario and the % increase in performance.
Threads Head Patched Diff
1 1669 1718 3%
2 2844 3195 12%
4 3909 4915 26%
8 7332 8329 14%
Kindly let me know if I am missing something.
--
Beena Emerson
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: