On 2016-03-31 17:52:12 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 3:48 PM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > > > > On 2016-03-31 15:07:22 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 4:39 AM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> > wrote: > > > > > > > > On 2016-03-28 22:50:49 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 8:01 PM, Amit Kapila < > amit.kapil...@gmail.com> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Amit, could you run benchmarks on your bigger hardware? Both with > > > > USE_CONTENT_LOCK commented out and in? > > > > > > > > > > Yes. > > > > Cool. > > > > > > > > I think we should go for 1) and 2) unconditionally. > > > > > Yes, that makes sense. On 20 min read-write pgbench --unlogged-tables > > > benchmark, I see that with HEAD Tps is 36241 and with increase the clog > > > buffers patch, Tps is 69340 at 128 client count (very good performance > > > boost) which indicates that we should go ahead with 1) and 2) patches. > > > > Especially considering the line count... I do wonder about going crazy > > and increasing to 256 immediately. It otherwise seems likely that we'll > > have the the same issue in a year. Could you perhaps run your test > > against that as well? > > > > Unfortunately, it dipped to 65005 with 256 clog bufs. So I think 128 is > appropriate number.
Ah, interesting. Then let's go with that. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
