Re: Should we cacheline align PGXACT?

From: Bernd Helmle <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de>
To: Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Should we cacheline align PGXACT?
Date: 2017-02-13 12:34:28
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Am Samstag, den 11.02.2017, 00:28 +0100 schrieb Tomas Vondra:
> Comparing averages of tps, measured on 5 runs (each 5 minutes long),
> the 
> difference between master and patched master is usually within 2%,
> which 
> is pretty much within noise.
> I'm attaching spreadsheets with summary of the results, so that we
> have 
> it in the archives. As usual, the scripts and much more detailed
> results 
> are available here:

I've done some benchmarking of this patch against the E850/ppc64el
Ubuntu LPAR we currently have access to and got the attached results.
pg_prewarm as recommended by Alexander was used, the tests run 300s
secs, scale 1000, each with a testrun before. The SELECT-only pgbench
was run twice each, the write tests only once.

Looks like the influence of this patch isn't that big, at least on this

We're going to reassign the resources to an AIX LPAR soon, which
doesn't give me enough time to test with Tomas' test scripts again.

Attachment Content-Type Size
image/png 6.0 KB
master-nopgxact-results.txt text/plain 2.8 KB
master-results-2.txt text/plain 2.8 KB
master-result-writes.txt text/plain 2.8 KB
pgxact-result-2.txt text/plain 2.9 KB
pgxact-results.txt text/plain 2.8 KB
pgxact-result-writes.txt text/plain 2.8 KB

In response to


Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2017-02-13 12:54:16 Re: Parallel bitmap heap scan
Previous Message Robert Haas 2017-02-13 12:17:22 Re: Parallel Index Scans