Re: [HACKERS] Should we cacheline align PGXACT?

> I agree.  Probably Simon's patch for reducing pgxact access could negate
> regression in pgxact alignment patch.
> Ashutosh, could please you run read-write and read-only tests when both
> these patches applied?

I already had the results with both the patches applied. But, as I was not quite
able to understand on how Simon's patch for reducing pgxact access could
negate the regression on read-write workload that we saw with pgxact-align-3
patch earlier, I was slightly hesitant to share the results. Anyways, here are
the results with combined patches on readonly and readwrite workload:

1) Results for read-only workload:
========================
pgbench -i -s 300 postgres
pgbench -M prepared -c $thread -j $thread -T $time_for_reading -S postgres

where, time_for_reading = 10mins
non default param:
shared_buffers=8GB
max_connections=300

CLIENT COUNT	TPS (HEAD)	TPS (PATCH)	% IMPROVEMENT
4	36333	36835	1.381664052
8	70179	72496	3.301557446
16	169303	175743	3.803831001
32	328837	341093	3.727074508
64	363352	399847	10.04397939
72	372011	413437	11.13569222
128	443979	578355	30.26629638
180	321420	552373	71.85396055
196	276780	558896	101.927885
256	234563	568951	142.5578629

2) Results for read-write workload:
=========================
pgbench -i -s 300 postgres
pgbench -M prepared -c $thread -j $thread -T $time_for_reading  postgres

where, time_for_reading = 30mins

non default param:
shared_buffers=8GB
max_connections=300

CLIENT COUNT	TPS (HEAD)	TPS (PATCH)	% IMPROVEMENT
4	2683	2690	0.2609019754
8	5321	5332	0.2067280586
16	10348	10387	0.3768844221
32	19446	19754	1.58387329
64	28178	28198	0.0709773582
72	28296	28639	1.212185468
128	28577	28600	0.0804843056
180	26665	27525	3.225201575
196	27628	28511	3.19603301
256	28467	28529	0.2177960445