On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 12:55 AM, Dilip Kumar <dilipbal...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2. Results > ./pgbench -c $threads -j $threads -T 10 -M prepared postgres -f script.sql > scale factor: 300 > Clients head(tps) grouplock(tps) granular(tps) > ------- --------- ---------- ------- > 128 29367 39326 37421 > 180 29777 37810 36469 > 256 28523 37418 35882 > > > grouplock --> 1) Group mode to reduce CLOGControlLock contention > granular --> 2) Use granular locking model > > I will test with 3rd approach also, whenever I get time. > > 3. Summary: > 1. I can see on head we are gaining almost ~30 % performance at higher > client count (128 and beyond). > 2. group lock is ~5% better compared to granular lock.
Sure, but you're testing at *really* high client counts here. Almost nobody is going to benefit from a 5% improvement at 256 clients. You need to test 64 clients and 32 clients and 16 clients and 8 clients and see what happens there. Those cases are a lot more likely than these stratospheric client counts. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers