| From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Jesper Pedersen <jesper(dot)pedersen(at)redhat(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Speed up Clog Access by increasing CLOG buffers |
| Date: | 2016-02-21 06:54:18 |
| Message-ID: | CAA4eK1J70Aj6Pvt31LYMD8ptMv7+9WFN0cQLq1LGhCYPFM9njw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 12:02 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 21, 2016 at 10:27 AM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Client_Count/Patch_Ver 1 64 128 256
>> HEAD(481725c0) 963 28145 28593 26447
>> Patch-1 938 28152 31703 29402
>>
>>
>> We can see 10~11% performance improvement as observed
>> previously. You might see 0.02% performance difference with
>> patch as regression, but that is just a run-to-run variation.
>>
>
> Don't the single-client numbers show about a 3% regresssion? Surely not
> 0.02%.
>
Sorry, you are right, it is ~2.66%, but in read-write pgbench tests, I
could see such fluctuation. Also patch doesn't change single-client
case. However, if you still feel that there could be impact by patch,
I can re-run the single client case once again with different combinations
like first with HEAD and then patch and vice versa.
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Fabien COELHO | 2016-02-21 07:26:28 | Re: checkpointer continuous flushing - V18 |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2016-02-21 06:32:31 | Re: Speed up Clog Access by increasing CLOG buffers |