From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | jesper(dot)pedersen(at)redhat(dot)com |
Cc: | Sokolov Yura <funny(dot)falcon(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Fix performance of generic atomics |
Date: | 2017-09-05 18:51:51 |
Message-ID: | 9816.1504637511@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Jesper Pedersen <jesper(dot)pedersen(at)redhat(dot)com> writes:
> On 09/05/2017 02:24 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Hm, so if we can't demonstrate a performance win, it's hard to justify
>> risking touching this code. What test case(s) did you use?
> I ran pgbench (-M prepared) with synchronous_commit 'on' and 'off' using
> both logged and unlogged tables. Also ran an internal benchmark which
> didn't show anything either.
That may just mean that pgbench isn't stressing any atomic ops very
hard (at least in the default scenario).
I'm tempted to write a little C function that just hits the relevant
atomic ops in a tight loop, and see how long it takes to do a few
million iterations. That would be erring in the opposite direction,
of overstating the importance of atomic ops to real-world scenarios
--- but if we didn't get any win that way, then it's surely in the noise.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2017-09-05 18:52:30 | Re: JIT compiling expressions/deform + inlining prototype v2.0 |
Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2017-09-05 18:43:33 | Re: JIT compiling expressions/deform + inlining prototype v2.0 |