| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | karavelov(at)mail(dot)bg |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: FWD: fastlock+lazyvzid patch performance |
| Date: | 2011-06-24 19:54:10 |
| Message-ID: | BANLkTik-2H=e6dQnK_zJEiyR374Ye8_OmQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 3:31 PM, <karavelov(at)mail(dot)bg> wrote:
> I post this results because they somehow contradict with previous results
> posted on the list. In
> my case the patches does not only improve peak performance but also improve
> the performance
> under load - without patches the performance with 256 clients is 53% of the
> peak performance
> that is obtained with 8 clients, with patches the performance with 256
> client is 79% of the peak
> with 8 clients.
I think this is strongly related to core count. The spinlock
contention problems don't become really bad until you get up above 32
CPUs... at least from what I can tell so far.
So I'm not surprised it was just a straight win on your machine... but
thanks for verifying. It's helpful to have more data points.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2011-06-24 20:00:27 | Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2011-06-24 19:46:17 | Re: ALTER TABLE lock strength reduction patch is unsafe |