On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 8:59 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > Sure, but you're testing at *really* high client counts here. Almost > nobody is going to benefit from a 5% improvement at 256 clients.
I agree with your point, but here we need to consider one more thing, that on head we are gaining ~30% with both the approaches. So for comparing these two patches we can consider.. A. Other workloads (one can be as below) -> Load on CLogControlLock at commit (exclusive mode) + Load on CLogControlLock at Transaction status (shared mode). I think we can mix (savepoint + updates) B. Simplicity of the patch (if both are performing almost equal in all practical scenarios). C. Bases on algorithm whichever seems winner. I will try to test these patches with other workloads... > 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. I tested with 64 clients as well.. 1. On head we are gaining ~15% with both the patches. 2. But group lock vs granular lock is almost same. -- Regards, Dilip Kumar EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
