Jaime Casanova wrote:
So in this extreme case avg tps is just 6 transactions better
Great job trying to find the spot where the code worked better. I'm not
so sure I trust pgbench results where the TPS was so low though. Which
leads us right back to exactly how Jeff measured his original results.
As I said already, I think we need more insight into Jeff's performance
report, a way to replicate that test, to look a bit at the latency as
reported by the updated LWLock patch that Pierre submitted. Tweaking
your test to give more useful results is a nice second opinion on top of
that. But we're out of time for now, so this patch is getting returned
with feedback. I encourage Jeff to resubmit the same patch or a better
one with a little more data on performance measurements to our final 8.5
CommitFest in hopes we can confirm this an improvement worth committing.
--
Greg Smith 2ndQuadrant Baltimore, MD
PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
g...@2ndquadrant.com www.2ndQuadrant.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
