Re: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics

On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 9:05 PM, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 5:14 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
>>
>> > > > >> ./pgbench -j$ -c$ -T300 -M prepared -S postgres
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> Client Base Patch
>> > > > >> 1 17169 16454
>> > > > >> 8 108547 105559
>> > > > >> 32 241619 262818
>> > > > >> 64 206868 233606
>> > > > >> 128 137084 217013
>> > >
>> > > So, there's a small regression on low client counts. That's worth
>> > > addressing.
>> > >
>> >
>> > Interesting. I'll try to reproduce it.
>>
>> Any progress here?
>
>
> In Multi socket machine with 8 sockets and 64 cores, I have seen more
regression compared to my previous run in power8 with 2 socket, currently I
tested Read only workload for 5 mins Run, When I get time, I will run for
longer time and confirm again.
>

Have you tried by reverting the commits 6150a1b0 and ac1d794, which I think
effects read-only performance and sometimes create variation in TPS across
different runs, here second might have less impact, but first one could
impact performance? Is it possible for you to get perf data with and
without patch and share with others?

With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com