On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 7:06 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > It would be good for someone else to reproduce my results though. > For one thing, 5%-ish is not that far above the noise level; maybe > what I'm measuring here is just good luck from relocation of critical > loops into more cache-line-friendly locations.
>From an OSX laptop with -S, -c 1 and -M prepared (9 runs, removed the three best and three worst): - HEAD: 9356/9343/9369 - HEAD + patch: 9433/9413/9461.071168 This laptop has a lot of I/O overhead... Still there is a slight improvement here as well. Looking at the progress report, per-second TPS gets easier more frequently into 9500~9600 TPS with the patch. So at least I am seeing something. -- Michael -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers