Re: testing ProcArrayLock patches

From: Pavan Deolasee <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: testing ProcArrayLock patches
Date: 2011-11-21 17:19:34
Message-ID: CABOikdNs=6zK0sTQu+xmLeaQPL5kk8hzzV19oqW=gTheST-D1A@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 10:44 PM, Kevin Grittner
<Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> wrote:
> "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov> wrote:
>
>> I can run one more set of tests tonight before I have to give it
>> back to the guy who's putting it into production.  It sounds like
>> a set like the above except with synchronous_commit = off might be
>> desirable?
>
> OK, that's what I did.  This gave me my best numbers yet for an
> updating run of pgbench: tps = 38039.724212 for prepared statements
> using the flexlock patch.  This patch is a clear win when you get to
> 16 clients or more.
>

It will be a great help if you could spare few minutes to also test
the patch to take out the frequently accessed PGPROC members to a
different array. We are seeing good improvements on HPUX IA platform
and the AMD Opteron and it will be interesting to know what happens on
the Intel platform too.

http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/4EB7C4C9.9070309@enterprisedb.com

Thanks,
Pavan

--
Pavan Deolasee
EnterpriseDB     http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2011-11-21 17:25:54 Re: ISN was: Core Extensions relocation
Previous Message Kevin Grittner 2011-11-21 17:14:23 Re: testing ProcArrayLock patches