On 2016-04-05 12:56:46 +0530, Dilip Kumar wrote: > On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 2:28 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > > > Hm, interesting. I suspect that's because of the missing backoff in my > > experimental patch. If you apply the attached patch ontop of that > > (requires infrastructure from pinunpin), how does performance develop? > > > > I have applied this patch also, but still results are same, I mean around > 550,000 with 64 threads and 650,000 with 128 client with lot of > fluctuations.. > > *128 client > **(head+**0001-WIP-Avoid-the-use-of-a-separate-spinlock-to-protect > +pinunpin-cas-9+backoff)* > > run1 645769 > run2 643161 > run3 *285546* > run4 *289421* > run5 630772 > run6 *284363*
I wonder what http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=commitdiff;h=09adc9a8c09c9640de05c7023b27fb83c761e91c does to all these numbers. It seems entirely possible that "this" is mainly changing the alignment of some common datastructures... - Andres -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
