Re: kqueue

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Tom Lane
Тема Re: kqueue
Дата
Msg-id 28060.1473798893@sss.pgh.pa.us
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: kqueue  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
Ответы Re: kqueue  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Список pgsql-hackers
Andres Freund <andres@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



В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Robert Haas
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: autonomous transactions
Следующее
От: Alvaro Herrera
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Inheriting PostgresNode object