Re: Reduce ProcArrayLock contention

From: Jesper Pedersen <jesper(dot)pedersen(at)redhat(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Reduce ProcArrayLock contention
Date: 2015-08-07 16:49:20
Message-ID: 55C4E190.3050104@redhat.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 08/07/2015 11:40 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 10:30 AM, Jesper Pedersen
> <jesper(dot)pedersen(at)redhat(dot)com> wrote:
>> Just thought I would post it in this thread, because this change does help
>> on the performance numbers compared to 9.5 :)
>
> So are you saying that the performance was already worse before this
> patch landed, and then this patch made it somewhat better? Or are you
> saying you think this patch broke it?
>

No, this patch helps on performance - there is an improvement in numbers
between

http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commit;h=253de7e1eb9abbcf57e6c229a8a38abd6455c7de

and

http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commit;h=0e141c0fbb211bdd23783afa731e3eef95c9ad7a

but you will have to use a 9.5 pgbench to see it, especially with higher
client counts.

Best regards,
Jesper

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andres Freund 2015-08-07 17:11:52 Re: Raising our compiler requirements for 9.6
Previous Message Robert Haas 2015-08-07 16:30:04 Re: Raising our compiler requirements for 9.6