On 2016-04-01 10:35:18 +0200, Andres Freund wrote: > On 2016-04-01 13:50:10 +0530, Dilip Kumar wrote: > > I think it needs more number of runs.. After seeing this results I did not > > run head+pinunpin, > > > > Head 64 Client 128 Client > > ----------------------------------------------------- > > Run1 434860 356945 > > Run2 275815 *275815* > > Run3 437872 366560 > > Patch 64 Client 128 Client > > ----------------------------------------------------- > > Run1 429520 372958 > > Run2 446249 *167189* > > Run3 431066 381592 > > Patch+Pinunpin 64 Client 128 Client > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > Run1 338298 642535 > > Run2 406240 644187 > > Run3 595439 *285420 * > > Could you describe the exact setup a bit more? Postgres settings, > pgbench parameters, etc. > > What's the size of BufferDesc after applying the patch?
One interesting thing to do would be to use -P1 during the test and see how much the performance varies over time. Greetings, Andres Freund -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
