On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 11:34 AM, Amit Kapila <
amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> I am not sure why we are seeing difference even though running
> on same m/c with same configuration.
I have tried many times, but I could not get the numbers you have
posted above with HEAD, however now trying with the latest version
[1] posted by you, everything seems to be fine at this workload.
The data at higher client count is as below:
| HEAD – commit 494affb |
|
|
| Shared_buffers=8GB; Scale Factor = 3000 |
|
|
| Client Count/No. Of Runs (tps) | 64 | 128 |
| Run-1 | 271799 | 247777 |
| Run-2 | 274341 | 245207 |
| Run-3 | 275019 | 252258 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| HEAD – commit 494affb + wait free lw_shared_v2 |
|
|
| Shared_buffers=8GB; Scale Factor = 3000 |
|
|
| Client Count/No. Of Runs (tps) | 64 | 128 |
| Run-1 | 286209 | 274922 |
| Run-2 | 289101 | 274495 |
| Run-3 | 289639 | 273633 |
So I am planning to proceed further with the review/test of your
latest patch.
According to me, below things are left from myside:
a. do some basic tpc-b tests with patch
b. re-review latest version posted by you
I know that you have posted optimization into StrategyGetBuffer() in
this thread, however I feel we can evaluate it separately unless you
are of opinion that both the patches should go together.
[1]