On 2014-09-25 10:42:29 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 10:24 AM, Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> > wrote: > > On 2014-09-25 10:22:47 -0400, Robert Haas wrote: > >> On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 10:14 AM, Andres Freund <and...@2ndquadrant.com> > >> wrote: > >> > That leads me to wonder: Have you measured different, lower, number of > >> > buffer mapping locks? 128 locks is, if we'd as we should align them > >> > properly, 8KB of memory. Common L1 cache sizes are around 32k... > >> > >> Amit has some results upthread showing 64 being good, but not as good > >> as 128. I haven't verified that myself, but have no reason to doubt > >> it. > > > > How about you push the spinlock change and I crosscheck the partition > > number on a multi socket x86 machine? Seems worthwile to make sure that > > it doesn't cause problems on x86. I seriously doubt it'll, but ... > > OK.
Given that the results look good, do you plan to push this? Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
