| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Marko Tiikkaja <marko(at)joh(dot)to>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: kqueue |
| Date: | 2016-09-14 05:51:48 |
| Message-ID: | CAB7nPqQNPCSn2Xvr0ZTj-A_iT9iQaDWV=MFV-Du=wWwkDf=Gpg@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 7:06 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> It would be good for someone else to reproduce my results though.
> For one thing, 5%-ish is not that far above the noise level; maybe
> what I'm measuring here is just good luck from relocation of critical
> loops into more cache-line-friendly locations.
From an OSX laptop with -S, -c 1 and -M prepared (9 runs, removed the
three best and three worst):
- HEAD: 9356/9343/9369
- HEAD + patch: 9433/9413/9461.071168
This laptop has a lot of I/O overhead... Still there is a slight
improvement here as well. Looking at the progress report, per-second
TPS gets easier more frequently into 9500~9600 TPS with the patch. So
at least I am seeing something.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kuntal Ghosh | 2016-09-14 05:56:21 | Re: WAL consistency check facility |
| Previous Message | Dilip Kumar | 2016-09-14 04:55:16 | Re: Speed up Clog Access by increasing CLOG buffers |