Re: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics

On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 7:05 AM, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

>
> 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
>

Great, thanks!

------
Alexander Korotkov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company