On 2016-03-31 15:07:22 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 4:39 AM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > > > > On 2016-03-28 22:50:49 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > > > On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 8:01 PM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Amit, could you run benchmarks on your bigger hardware? Both with > > USE_CONTENT_LOCK commented out and in? > > > > Yes.
Cool. > > I think we should go for 1) and 2) unconditionally. > Yes, that makes sense. On 20 min read-write pgbench --unlogged-tables > benchmark, I see that with HEAD Tps is 36241 and with increase the clog > buffers patch, Tps is 69340 at 128 client count (very good performance > boost) which indicates that we should go ahead with 1) and 2) patches. Especially considering the line count... I do wonder about going crazy and increasing to 256 immediately. It otherwise seems likely that we'll have the the same issue in a year. Could you perhaps run your test against that as well? > I think we should change comments on top of this function. Yes, definitely. > 0001-Improve-64bit-atomics-support > > +#if 0 > +#ifndef PG_HAVE_ATOMIC_READ_U64 > +#define PG_HAVE_ATOMIC_READ_U64 > +static inline uint64 > > What the purpose of above #if 0? Other than that patch looks good to me. I think I was investigating something. Other than that obviously there's no point. Sorry for that. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
