On Mon, Jan 26, 2015 at 8:04 PM, Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 2015-01-26 19:58:25 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 01:43:41AM +0100, Andres Freund wrote:
>> > master + 32align.patch:
>> > -c max_connections=400
>> > tps = 183791.872359 (high run vs. run variability)
>> > -c max_connections=401
>> > tps = 185494.98244 (high run vs. run variability)
>> >
>> > master + 64align.patch:
>> > -c max_connections=400
>> > tps = 489257.195570
>> > -c max_connections=401
>> > tps = 490496.520632
>> >
>> > Pretty much as expected, rigth?
>>
>> Yes, I am convinced. Let's work on a patch now.
>
> Since I can reproduce some minor (1-3%) performance *regressions* at low
> client counts when aligning every shmem allocation, I'm inclined to just
> add special case code to BufferShmemSize()/InitBufferPool() to align
> descriptors to PG_CACHE_LINE_SIZE. That's really unlikely to regress
> anythign as it basically can't be a bad idea to align buffer
> descriptors.
>
> Contrary opinions? Robert?
I'm totally OK with further aligning just that one allocation.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company