From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Wait free LW_SHARED acquisition - v0.9 |
Date: | 2014-10-17 18:11:37 |
Message-ID: | 20141017181137.GE2075@alap3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2014-10-17 17:14:16 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 11:34 AM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I am not sure why we are seeing difference even though running
> > on same m/c with same configuration.
>
> I have tried many times, but I could not get the numbers you have
> posted above with HEAD, however now trying with the latest version
> [1] posted by you, everything seems to be fine at this workload.
> The data at higher client count is as below:
I'll try to reproduce it next week. But I don't think it matters all
that much. Personally so far the performance numbers don't seem to
indicate much reason to wait any further. We sure improve further, but I
don't see much reason to wait because of that.
> HEAD – commit 494affb
>
> Shared_buffers=8GB; Scale Factor = 3000
>
> Client Count/No. Of Runs (tps) 64 128 Run-1 271799 247777 Run-2 274341
> 245207 Run-3 275019 252258
>
>
>
>
>
> HEAD – commit 494affb + wait free lw_shared_v2
>
> Shared_buffers=8GB; Scale Factor = 3000
>
> Client Count/No. Of Runs (tps) 64 128 Run-1 286209 274922 Run-2 289101
> 274495 Run-3 289639 273633
So here the results with LW_SHARED were consistently better, right? You
saw performance degradations here earlier?
> So I am planning to proceed further with the review/test of your
> latest patch.
> According to me, below things are left from myside:
> a. do some basic tpc-b tests with patch
> b. re-review latest version posted by you
Cool!
> I know that you have posted optimization into StrategyGetBuffer() in
> this thread, however I feel we can evaluate it separately unless you
> are of opinion that both the patches should go together.
>
> [1]
> http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20141010111027.GC6670@alap3.anarazel.de
No, I don't think they should go together - I wrote that patch because
it was the bottleneck in the possibly regressing test and I wanted to
see the full effect. Although I do think we should apply it ;)
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2014-10-17 18:13:00 | Re: Vitesse DB call for testing |
Previous Message | Feng Tian | 2014-10-17 18:08:48 | Fwd: Vitesse DB call for testing |