Hi!
On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 8:02 PM, Ashutosh Sharma <ashu(dot)coek88(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:
> I too have performed benchmarking of this patch on a large machine
> (with 128 CPU(s), 520GB RAM, intel x86-64 architecture) and would like
> to share my observations for the same (Please note that, as I had to
> reverify readings on few client counts, it did take some time for me
> to share these test-results.)
>
Great! Thank you very much for testing.
Case3: Data fits in shared buffer, Read-write workload:
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> -----------------
> In this case, I could see that the tps on head and patch are very
> close to each other with a small variation of (+-)3-4% which i assume
> is a run-to-run variation. PFA result sheet
> 'results-readwrite-300-1000-SF' containing the test-results.
>
I wouldn't say it's just a variation. It looks like relatively small but
noticeable regression in the patch.
According to Andres comment [1] I made a version of patch
(pgxact-align-3.patch) which align PGXACT to 16 bytes.
That excludes situation when single PGXACT is spread over 2 cache lines.
Results of read-only tests are attached. We can see that 16-byte alignment
gives speedup in read-only tests, but it's a bit less than speedup of cache
line alignment version.
Read-write tests are now running. Hopefully 16-byte alignment version of
patch wouldn't cause regression in read-write benchmark.
1.
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20160822021747.u5bqx2xwwjzac5u5@alap3.anarazel.de
------
Alexander Korotkov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company
