| From: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ashutosh Sharma <ashu(dot)coek88(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, YUriy Zhuravlev <u(dot)zhuravlev(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics |
| Date: | 2016-04-05 07:26:46 |
| Message-ID: | CAFiTN-uoToTt+BpASbFds_HFRbzhP2=SWeYjMHLkT_tu8tWAkQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 2:28 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> Hm, interesting. I suspect that's because of the missing backoff in my
> experimental patch. If you apply the attached patch ontop of that
> (requires infrastructure from pinunpin), how does performance develop?
>
I have applied this patch also, but still results are same, I mean around
550,000 with 64 threads and 650,000 with 128 client with lot of
fluctuations..
*128 client
**(head+**0001-WIP-Avoid-the-use-of-a-separate-spinlock-to-protect
+pinunpin-cas-9+backoff)*
run1 645769
run2 643161
run3 *285546*
run4 *289421*
run5 630772
run6 *284363*
--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2016-04-05 07:31:22 | Re: Support for N synchronous standby servers - take 2 |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2016-04-05 07:18:19 | Re: Combining Aggregates |