On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 9:02 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
Did we ever make a decision on this patch?
I committed it as 1fc3d18faa8f4476944bc6854be0f7f6adf4aec8.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers
Did we ever make a decision on this patch?
---
On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 09:22:50PM +0530, Pavan Deolasee wrote:
On some recent benchmarks and profile data, I saw GetSnapshotData
figures at the very top or near top. For
On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 5:49 PM, Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de wrote:
On Saturday, November 26, 2011 11:39:23 PM Robert Haas wrote:
On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 5:28 PM, Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de wrote:
On Saturday, November 26, 2011 09:52:17 PM Tom Lane wrote:
I'd just as soon keep the
Pavan Deolasee wrote:
On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 12:26 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Pavan Deolasee pavan.deola...@gmail.com writes:
On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 10:43 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com
wrote:
Furthermore, it's
hard to understand how this could be a net improvement
On Tuesday, November 29, 2011 05:51:40 AM Pavan Deolasee wrote:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 8:30 AM, Kevin Grittner
kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov wrote:
Andres Freund wrote:
I would like to see somebody running a benchmark on a machine with
higher concurrency...
Yeah, me too. I don't
Hi,
On Monday, November 28, 2011 08:55:28 PM Gurjeet Singh wrote:
This may not be necessary, but can you please share the modified config you
used for the last run.
I just copied the .conf I had for some independent development.
max_connections = 100
listen_addresses = ''
port=5432
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 7:12 AM, Pavan Deolasee
pavan.deola...@gmail.com wrote:
I think that a good idea. We need a representation that needs minimum
processing to derive the snapshot.
I was looking over the generated code for GetSnapshotData to see if there
is any low hanging fruit for
On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 6:51 PM, Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de wrote:
On Saturday, November 26, 2011 11:39:23 PM Robert Haas wrote:
On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 5:28 PM, Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de
wrote:
On Saturday, November 26, 2011 09:52:17 PM Tom Lane wrote:
I'd just as soon
Hi Gurjeet,
On Monday, November 28, 2011 08:55:28 PM Gurjeet Singh wrote:
On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 6:51 PM, Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de wrote:
On Saturday, November 26, 2011 11:39:23 PM Robert Haas wrote:
On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 5:28 PM, Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de
wrote:
Andres Freund wrote:
I would like to see somebody running a benchmark on a machine with
higher concurrency...
Yeah, me too. I don't find it at all hard to believe that we will
see significant performance benefit by changing the PGPROC structure
so that all parts of it can be accessed
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 8:30 AM, Kevin Grittner
kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov wrote:
Andres Freund wrote:
I would like to see somebody running a benchmark on a machine with
higher concurrency...
Yeah, me too. I don't find it at all hard to believe that we will
see significant performance
On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 12:26 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Pavan Deolasee pavan.deola...@gmail.com writes:
On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 10:43 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
Furthermore, it's
hard to understand how this could be a net improvement in the general
case, because
On some recent benchmarks and profile data, I saw GetSnapshotData
figures at the very top or near top. For lesser number of clients, it
can account for 10-20% of time, but more number of clients I have seen
it taking up as much as 40% of sample time. Unfortunately, the machine
of which I was
On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Pavan Deolasee
pavan.deola...@gmail.com wrote:
What we can do is when a transaction comes to compute its snapshot, it
checks if some other transaction is already computing a snapshot for
itself. If so, it just sleeps on the lock. When the other process
On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 10:43 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Pavan Deolasee
pavan.deola...@gmail.com wrote:
What we can do is when a transaction comes to compute its snapshot, it
checks if some other transaction is already computing a snapshot
Pavan Deolasee pavan.deola...@gmail.com writes:
On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 10:43 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
Furthermore, it's
hard to understand how this could be a net improvement in the general
case, because now both B and F are copying everything twice (once to
the shared
Hi,
On Saturday, November 26, 2011 04:52:50 PM Pavan Deolasee wrote:
I think now that we have reduced the run time of the function itself,
we should now try to reduce the number of times the function is
called. Robert proposed a way to reduce the number of calls per
transaction. I think we
Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de writes:
You could also try if it makes a difference reducing SnapshotData to one
instead of two cachelines. The data itself fits into one without problems.
Trivial patch attached.
On what grounds do you argue that this patch gets SnapshotData into one
On Saturday, November 26, 2011 09:52:17 PM Tom Lane wrote:
Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de writes:
You could also try if it makes a difference reducing SnapshotData to one
instead of two cachelines. The data itself fits into one without
problems. Trivial patch attached.
On what grounds do
On Saturday, November 26, 2011 09:52:17 PM Tom Lane wrote:
I'd just as soon keep the fields in a logical order.
Btw, I don't think the new order is necessarily worse than the old one.
Andres
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your
On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 5:28 PM, Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de wrote:
On Saturday, November 26, 2011 09:52:17 PM Tom Lane wrote:
I'd just as soon keep the fields in a logical order.
Btw, I don't think the new order is necessarily worse than the old one.
You forget to attach the benchmark
On Saturday, November 26, 2011 11:39:23 PM Robert Haas wrote:
On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 5:28 PM, Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de wrote:
On Saturday, November 26, 2011 09:52:17 PM Tom Lane wrote:
I'd just as soon keep the fields in a logical order.
Btw, I don't think the new order is
On Saturday, November 26, 2011 11:39:23 PM Robert Haas wrote:
On Sat, Nov 26, 2011 at 5:28 PM, Andres Freund and...@anarazel.de wrote:
On Saturday, November 26, 2011 09:52:17 PM Tom Lane wrote:
I'd just as soon keep the fields in a logical order.
Btw, I don't think the new order is
Andres Freund wrote:
All current x86 cpus use 64bytes.
That matches what I found in recent research on the topic.
-Kevin
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
24 matches
Mail list logo
