Hi! On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 8:02 PM, Ashutosh Sharma <ashu.coe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I too have performed benchmarking of this patch on a large machine > (with 128 CPU(s), 520GB RAM, intel x86-64 architecture) and would like > to share my observations for the same (Please note that, as I had to > reverify readings on few client counts, it did take some time for me > to share these test-results.) > Great! Thank you very much for testing. Case3: Data fits in shared buffer, Read-write workload: > ------------------------------------------------------------ > ----------------- > In this case, I could see that the tps on head and patch are very > close to each other with a small variation of (+-)3-4% which i assume > is a run-to-run variation. PFA result sheet > 'results-readwrite-300-1000-SF' containing the test-results. > I wouldn't say it's just a variation. It looks like relatively small but noticeable regression in the patch. According to Andres comment [1] I made a version of patch (pgxact-align-3.patch) which align PGXACT to 16 bytes. That excludes situation when single PGXACT is spread over 2 cache lines. Results of read-only tests are attached. We can see that 16-byte alignment gives speedup in read-only tests, but it's a bit less than speedup of cache line alignment version. Read-write tests are now running. Hopefully 16-byte alignment version of patch wouldn't cause regression in read-write benchmark. 1. https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20160822021747.u5bqx2xwwjzac...@alap3.anarazel.de ------ Alexander Korotkov Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com The Russian Postgres Company
pgxact-align-3.patch
Description: Binary data
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
