On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 8:59 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sure, but you're testing at *really* high client counts here. Almost
> nobody is going to benefit from a 5% improvement at 256 clients.
I agree with your point, but here we need to consider one more thing,
that on head we are gaining ~30% with both the approaches.
So for comparing these two patches we can consider..
A. Other workloads (one can be as below) -> Load on CLogControlLock at commit (exclusive mode) + Load on
CLogControlLock at Transaction status (shared mode). I think we can mix (savepoint + updates)
B. Simplicity of the patch (if both are performing almost equal in all
practical scenarios).
C. Bases on algorithm whichever seems winner.
I will try to test these patches with other workloads...
> You
> need to test 64 clients and 32 clients and 16 clients and 8 clients
> and see what happens there. Those cases are a lot more likely than
> these stratospheric client counts.
I tested with 64 clients as well..
1. On head we are gaining ~15% with both the patches.
2. But group lock vs granular lock is almost same.
--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com