Request a Demo
Home   >   mailing lists

Re: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Dilip Kumar
Subject Re: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics
Date
Msg-id CAFiTN-tK2H4mWDFiMxxAk65N2uXnwJHcsveqfNCyk=wh97aw5w@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread
In response to Re: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
Responses Re: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics
List pgsql-hackers
Tree view

On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 10:39 AM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
Sounds like a ppc vs. x86 issue. The regression was on the former, right?

Well, Regression what I reported last two time, out of that one was on X86 and other was on PPC.


Copied from older Threads
--------------------------------------
On PPC
>> > > > >> ./pgbench  -j$ -c$ -T300 -M prepared -S postgres
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> Client    Base    Patch
>> > > > >> 1    17169    16454
>> > > > >> 8    108547    105559
>> > > > >> 32    241619    262818
>> > > > >> 64    206868    233606
>> > > > >> 128    137084    217013

On X86
>> > > > >>Shared Buffer= 8GB
>> > > > >>Scale Factor=300

>> > > > >>./pgbench  -j$ -c$ -T300 -M prepared -S postgres
>> > > > >>client         base        patch
>> > > > >>1               7057         5230
>> > > > >>2             10043         9573
>> > > > >>4             20140        18188


And this latest result (no regression) is on X86 but on my local machine.

I did not exactly saw what this new version of patch is doing different, so I will test this version in other machines also and see the results.


--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: TAP / recovery-test fs-level backups, psql enhancements etc
Next
From: Craig Ringer
Date:
Subject: Re: TAP / recovery-test fs-level backups, psql enhancements etc