Re: Priority table or Cache table

From: Beena Emerson <memissemerson(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Haribabu Kommi <kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Sameer Thakur <samthakur74(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Priority table or Cache table
Date: 2014-06-30 13:08:15
Message-ID: CAOG9ApE4Qu7fuoOEFRUiG0xFZYqNtscNgH2s2O8Q2iGgeoO66A@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 9:50 AM, Haribabu Kommi <kommi(dot)haribabu(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:

> Sorry for the late reply. Thanks for the test.
> Please find the re-based patch with a temp fix for correcting the problem.
> I will a submit a proper patch fix later.
>
>
Please note that the new patch still gives assertion error:

TRAP: FailedAssertion("!(buf->freeNext != (-2))", File: "freelist.c", Line:
178)
psql:load_test.sql:5: connection to server was lost

Hence, the patch was installed with assertions off.

I also ran the test script after making the same configuration changes that
you have specified. I found that I was not able to get the same performance
difference that you have reported.

Following table lists the tps in each scenario and the % increase in
performance.

Threads Head Patched Diff
1 1669 1718 3%
2 2844 3195 12%
4 3909 4915 26%
8 7332 8329 14%

Kindly let me know if I am missing something.

--
Beena Emerson

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2014-06-30 13:13:31 Re: pgaudit - an auditing extension for PostgreSQL
Previous Message Michael Paquier 2014-06-30 12:54:27 Re: IMPORT FOREIGN SCHEMA statement