On Wed, 6 Jun 2012, Ants Aasma wrote:
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 2:27 PM, Sergey Koposov <kopo...@ast.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
I've quickly tested your lockfree-getbuffer.patch patch with the test case
you provided and I barely see any improvement (2% at max)
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B7koR68V2nM1QVBxWGpZdW4wd0U
tested with 24 core (48 ht cores, Xeon E7- 4807).
Although the tps vs number of threads looks weird....
Was this the range scan on the test table? (sorry about the error in
the query, the x should really be id) In that case the results look
really suspicious.
Yes, my fault partially, because without much thought I've put "value"
instead of "x" in the script. Now after replacing it by "id" the tps are
much smaller.
Here is the tps vs nthreads I did test up to 10 threads on my 24 cpu
system (I disabled HT though):
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B7koR68V2nM1Nk9OcWNJOTRrYVE
Your patch clearly improve the situation (the peak tps is ~ 10% higher),
but the general picture is the same: flattening of tps vs nthreads.
Cheers,
S
*****************************************************
Sergey E. Koposov, PhD, Research Associate
Institute of Astronomy, University of Cambridge
Madingley road, CB3 0HA, Cambridge, UK
Tel: +44-1223-337-551 Web: http://www.ast.cam.ac.uk/~koposov/
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
