On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 8:38 PM, Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > > On 2014-10-14 20:30:45 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 7:55 PM, Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > On 2014-10-14 09:30:58 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > > > > A few years ago I started working on a concurrent hash table for > > > > PostgreSQL. The hash table part of it worked, but I never did > > > > anything with it, really. Amit mentioned to me earlier this week that > > > > he was seeing contention inside the dynahash machinery, which inspired > > > > me to go back and update the patch. > > > > > > Interestingly I've benchmarked similar loads, even on the same machine > > > as Amit, > > > > There is one catch here, for these profiles I am using Power-8 m/c > > and the load is slightly higher (5000 scale factor). > > Ah, right. I don't think the scale factor changes much, but the > different architecture certainly does. As I said elsewhere, I would not > believe these profiles much until they're actually done with optimized > code...
Today, that m/c is not accessible, so will take a day or so to get the optimized profiles and will post it once I am able to take the same. With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
