| From: | Matteo Beccati <php(at)beccati(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: kqueue |
| Date: | 2016-09-14 13:09:59 |
| Message-ID: | bb426b5f-57a7-14ea-de86-4b68ffa10d61@beccati.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 14/09/2016 00:06, Tom Lane wrote:
> I'm inclined to think the kqueue patch is worth applying just on the
> grounds that it makes things better on OS X and doesn't seem to hurt
> on FreeBSD. Whether anyone would ever get to the point of seeing
> intra-kernel contention on these platforms is hard to predict, but
> we'd be ahead of the curve if so.
>
> It would be good for someone else to reproduce my results though.
> For one thing, 5%-ish is not that far above the noise level; maybe
> what I'm measuring here is just good luck from relocation of critical
> loops into more cache-line-friendly locations.
FWIW, I've tested HEAD vs patch on a 2-cpu low end NetBSD 7.0 i386 machine.
HEAD: 1890/1935/1889 tps
kqueue: 1905/1957/1932 tps
no weird surprises, and basically no differences either.
Cheers
--
Matteo Beccati
Development & Consulting - http://www.beccati.com/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Rahila Syed | 2016-09-14 13:39:48 | Re: Surprising behaviour of \set AUTOCOMMIT ON |
| Previous Message | Pavan Deolasee | 2016-09-14 12:16:08 | Re: Vacuum: allow usage of more than 1GB of work mem |