Re: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics

On Thu, Dec 24, 2015 at 8:26 AM, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:

> On Sun, Dec 13, 2015 at 11:05 PM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 6:34 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
> wrote:
>

I was looking into this patch, overall patch looks good to me, I want to
know what is the current state of this patch, is there some pending task in
this patch ?

Patch was not applying on head so i have re based it and re based version is
attached in the mail.

I have done some performance testing also..

Summary:
---------------
1. In my test for readonly workload i have observed some improvement for
scale factor 1000.
2. I have also observed some regression with scale factor 300 (I can't say
it's actual regression or just run to run variance), I thought that may be
problem with lower scale factor so tested with scale factor 100 but with
s.f. 100 looks fine.

Machine Detail:
cpu : POWER8
cores: 24 (192 with HT)

Non Default Parameter:
------------------------
Shared Buffer= 30GB
max_wal_size= 10GB
max_connections=500

Test1:
pgbench -i -s 1000 postgres
pgbench -c$ -j$ -Mprepared -S postgres

Client Base Pached

1 19753 19493
32 344059 336773
64 495708 540425
128 564358 685212
256 466562 639059

Test2:
pgbench -i -s 300 postgres
pgbench -c$ -j$ -Mprepared -S postgres

Client Base Pached

1 20555 19404
32 375919 332670
64 509067 440680
128 431346 415121
256 380926 379176

Test3:
pgbench -i -s 100 postgres
pgbench -c$ -j$ -Mprepared -S postgres

Client Base Pached

1 20555 19404
32 375919 332670
64 509067 440680
128 431346 415121
256 380926 379176

--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com