On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 12:48 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
>> ... Maybe that difference matters to the memory prefetching
>> controller, I dunno, but it seems funny that we did the PGXACT work to
>> reduce the number of cache lines that had to be touched in order to
>> take a snapshot to improve performance, and now we're talking about
>> increasing it again, also to improve performance.
> Yes.  I was skeptical that the original change was adequately proven
> to be a good idea, and I'm even more skeptical this time.  I think
> every single number that's been reported about this is completely
> machine-specific, and likely workload-specific too, and should not
> be taken as a reason to do anything.

The original change definitely worked on read-only pgbench workloads
on both x86 and Itanium, and the gains were pretty significant at
higher client counts.  I don't know whether we tested POWER.
Read-only pgbench throughput is not the world, of course, but it's a
reasonable proxy for high-concurrency, read-mostly workloads involving
short transactions, so it's not nothing, either.

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:

Reply via email to