Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hmm. That looks a lot like a profile with no lock contention at > all. Since I see XLogInsert in there, I assume this must be a > pgbench write test on unlogged tables? How close am I? Not unless pgbench on HEAD does that by default. Here are the relevant statements: $prefix/bin/pgbench -i -s 150 $prefix/bin/pgbench -T $time -c $clients -j $clients >>$resultfile Perhaps the Intel cores implement the relevant primitives better? Maybe I didn't run the profile or reports the right way? > I was actually thinking it would be interesting to oprofile the > read-only test; see if we can figure out where those slowdowns are > coming from. I'll plan on doing that this weekend. >> tps = 21946.961196 (including connections establishing) >> tps = 22911.873227 (including connections establishing) >> >> For write transactions, that seems pretty respectable. > > Very. What do you get without the patch? [quick runs a couple tests that way] Single run with -M simple: tps = 23018.314292 (including connections establishing) Single run with -M prepared: tps = 27910.621044 (including connections establishing) So, the patch appears to hinder performance in this environment, although certainty is quite low with so few samples. I'll schedule a spectrum of runs before I leave this evening (very soon). -Kevin
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
