Re: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Alexander Korotkov
Тема Re: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics
Дата
Msg-id CAPpHfds+vpJ0f55V_R_RVndyo7ZBFSfZd-Q1R1P+JozO_T9Q-A@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics  (Alexander Korotkov <a.korotkov@postgrespro.ru>)
Ответы Re: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics
Список pgsql-hackers
Дерево обсуждения
On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 10:19 PM, Alexander Korotkov <a.korotkov@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 7:39 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
As you can see in
http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/CA%2BTgmoaeRbN%3DZ4oWENLvgGLeHEvGZ_S_Z3KGrdScyKiSvNt3oA%40mail.gmail.com
I'm planning to apply this sometime this weekend, after running some
tests and going over the patch again.

Any chance you could have a look over this?

I took a look at this.  Changes you made look good for me.
I also run test on 4x18 Intel server.

On the top of current master results are following:

clients    TPS
1         12562
2         25604
4         52661
8        103209
10       128599
20       256872
30       365718
40       432749
50       513528
60       684943
70       696050
80       923350
90      1119776
100     1208027
110     1229429
120     1163356
130     1107924
140     1084344
150     1014064
160      961730
170      980743
180      968419

The results are quite discouraging because previously we had about 1.5M TPS in the peak while we have only about 1.2M now.  I found that it's not related to the changes you made in the patch, but it's related to 5364b357 "Increase maximum number of clog buffers".  I'm making same benchmark with 5364b357 reverted.

------
Alexander Korotkov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company 

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: