From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Jesper Pedersen <jesper(dot)pedersen(at)redhat(dot)com>, Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics |
Date: | 2015-11-06 20:38:33 |
Message-ID: | B84B1E9A-A068-4598-BF14-E2CC712E5049@anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On November 6, 2015 9:31:37 PM GMT+01:00, Jesper Pedersen <jesper(dot)pedersen(at)redhat(dot)com> wrote:
>I have been testing this on a smaller system than yours - 2 socket
>Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-2683 v3 w/ 2 x RAID10 SSD disks (data + xlog),
>so focused on a smaller number of clients.
Thanks for running tests!
>While I saw an improvement for the 'synchronous_commit = on' case -
>there is a small regression for 'off', using -M prepared + Unix Domain
>Socket. If that is something that should be considered right now.
What tests where you running, in which order? I presume it's a read/write pgbench? What scale, shared buffers?
I right now can't see any reason sc on/off should be relevant for the patch. Could it be an artifact of the order you ran tests in?
Did you initdb between tests? Pgbench -i? Restart the database?
Andres
---
Please excuse brevity and formatting - I am writing this on my mobile phone.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Fabien COELHO | 2015-11-06 20:44:31 | Re: extend pgbench expressions with functions |
Previous Message | Jesper Pedersen | 2015-11-06 20:31:37 | Re: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics |