| From: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, YUriy Zhuravlev <u(dot)zhuravlev(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics |
| Date: | 2016-03-05 12:22:36 |
| Message-ID: | CAFiTN-s1XQ3GfzMCsqAxxtKSwtyTuSrCE-_KxMpJF4EG9FLucg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 11:05 AM, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> And this latest result (no regression) is on X86 but on my local machine.
>
> I did not exactly saw what this new version of patch is doing different,
> so I will test this version in other machines also and see the results.
>
I tested this on PPC again, This time in various order (sometime patch
first and then base first).
I tested with latest patch *pinunpin-cas-2.patch* on Power8.
Shared Buffer = 8GB
./pgbench -j$ -c$ -T300 -M prepared -S postgres
BASE
-----
Clients run1 run2 run3
1 21200 18754 20537
2 40331 39520 38746
Patch
-----
Clients run1 run2 run3
1 20225 19806 19778
2 39830 41898 36620
I think, here we can not see any regression, (If I take median then it may
looks low with patch so posting all 3 reading).
Note: reverted only ac1d794 commit in my test.
--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Browder | 2016-03-05 12:24:35 | Static code checker research worth investigating (Communications of the ACM, 03/2016, Vol. 59, No. 03, p. 99) |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2016-03-05 11:36:23 | Re: WIP: Upper planner pathification |