Re: Wait free LW_SHARED acquisition - v0.9

From: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Wait free LW_SHARED acquisition - v0.9
Date: 2014-10-11 13:32:59
Message-ID: CAA4eK1+g+rGaeunKAyJXiVLc16S9msUW1vSB5HBrKBFPhiLSyw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 6:40 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
wrote:
> On 2014-10-11 07:26:57 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 7:00 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
> > > And since
> > > your general performance numbers are a fair bit lower than what I see
> > > with, hopefully, the same code on the same machine...
> >
> > You have reported numbers at 1000 scale factor and mine were
> > at 3000 scale factor, so I think the difference is expected.
>
> The numbers for 3000 show pretty much the same:
>
> SCALE 128 160 175
> HEAD 352113 339005 336491
> LW_SHARED 365874 347931 342528
>
> Hm. I wonder if you're using pgbench without -M prepared?

No, I use below statement:
./pgbench -c 128 -j 128 -T 300 -S -M prepared postgres

> That'd about
> explain the difference.

Here I think first thing to clarify is why the numbers on HEAD are
different? Another thing is that I generally see difference in
numbers at 1000 and 3000 scale factor (although I have not run
lately), but in your case the numbers are almost same.

I will try once more by cleaning every thing(installation, data_dir, etc..)
but not today...

With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Joe Conway 2014-10-11 13:41:26 Re: Column Redaction
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2014-10-11 13:32:15 Re: Add CREATE support to event triggers