From: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, 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: | 2016-02-01 04:05:56 |
Message-ID: | CAFiTN-teXU+OVke7gtZy7vOq5bA+Ei57Ze-F3QzJ-eV6bdkO=A@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 11:44 AM, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> By looking at the results with scale factor 1000 and 100 i don't see any
> reason why it will regress with scale factor 300.
>
> So I will run the test again with scale factor 300 and this time i am
> planning to run 2 cases.
> 1. when data fits in shared buffer
> 2. when data doesn't fit in shared buffer.
>
I have run the test again with 300 S.F and found no regression, in fact
there is improvement with the patch like we saw with 1000 scale factor.
Shared Buffer= 8GB
max_connections=150
Scale Factor=300
./pgbench -j$ -c$ -T300 -M prepared -S postgres
Client Base Patch
1 19744 19382
8 125923 126395
32 313931 333351
64 387339 496830
128 306412 350610
Shared Buffer= 512MB
max_connections=150
Scale Factor=300
./pgbench -j$ -c$ -T300 -M prepared -S postgres
Client Base Patch
1 17169 16454
8 108547 105559
32 241619 262818
64 206868 233606
128 137084 217013
--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Fujii Masao | 2016-02-01 04:21:54 | Re: Several problems in tab-completions for SET/RESET |
Previous Message | Andreas Karlsson | 2016-02-01 03:59:52 | Re: Generalizing SortSupport for text to work with char(n), bytea, and alternative opclasses |