| From: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Scaling shared buffer eviction |
| Date: | 2014-09-08 16:42:08 |
| Message-ID: | CAHyXU0xCAuxG=4b-Pbqk+Tkn42WHL5c0_fORXgFta6WY8zf-ug@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 6:47 AM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Client Count/Patch_Ver (tps) 8 16 32 64 128
> HEAD 58614 107370 140717 104357 65010
> Patch 60092 113564 165014 213848 216065
>
> This data is median of 3 runs, detailed report is attached with mail.
> I have not repeated the test for all configurations, as there is no
> major change in design/algorithm which can effect performance.
> Mark has already taken tpc-b data which ensures that there is
> no problem with it, however I will also take it once with latest version.
Well, these numbers are pretty much amazing. Question: It seems
there's obviously quite a bit of contention left; do you think
there's still a significant amount of time in the clock sweep, or is
the primary bottleneck the buffer mapping locks?
merlin
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jeff Janes | 2014-09-08 17:30:45 | Re: pgcrypto: PGP signatures |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2014-09-08 16:39:59 | Re: [v9.5] Custom Plan API |