Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes:
> On 2016-09-13 15:37:22 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> (It's a 4-core CPU so I saw little point in pressing harder than
>> that.)
> I think in reality most busy machines, were performance and scalability
> matter, are overcommitted in the number of connections vs. cores. And
> if you look at throughput graphs that makes sense; they tend to increase
> considerably after reaching #hardware-threads, even if all connections
> are full throttle busy.
At -j 10 -c 10, all else the same, I get 84928 TPS on HEAD and 90357
with the patch, so about 6% better.
>> So at this point I'm wondering why Thomas and Heikki could not measure
>> any win. Based on my results it should be easy. Is it possible that
>> OS X is better tuned for multi-CPU hardware than FreeBSD?
> Hah!
Well, there must be some reason why this patch improves matters on OS X
and not FreeBSD ...
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
