Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.208.211]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96AA06339E6 for ; Tue, 17 Mar 2009 21:43:31 -0300 (ADT) Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.208.211]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 78683-07 for ; Tue, 17 Mar 2009 21:43:21 -0300 (ADT) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from outmail128084.authsmtp.co.uk (outmail128084.authsmtp.co.uk [62.13.128.84]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40B1F633EC7 for ; Tue, 17 Mar 2009 21:43:26 -0300 (ADT) Received: from mail-c188.authsmtp.com (mail-c188.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.25]) by punt5.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/Kp) with ESMTP id n2I0hM4U041682; Wed, 18 Mar 2009 00:43:22 GMT Received: from [192.168.0.2] (85-211-223-92.dyn.gotadsl.co.uk [85.211.223.92]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.authsmtp.com (8.14.2/8.14.2/Kp) with ESMTP id n2I0hL0h054412; Wed, 18 Mar 2009 00:43:21 GMT Subject: Re: Proposal of tunable fix for scalability of 8.4 From: Simon Riggs To: "Jignesh K. Shah" Cc: Tom Lane , Kevin Grittner , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org In-Reply-To: <49C0384E.2020707@sun.com> References: <49B824DD.7090302@sun.com> <49B7F470.EE98.0025.0@wicourts.gov> <29080.1236821556@sss.pgh.pa.us> <49B87161.10201@sun.com> <1237225198.3963.60.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant> <49C01900.5030406@sun.com> <1237330778.3953.139.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant> <49C0384E.2020707@sun.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 00:43:23 +0000 Message-Id: <1237337003.3953.157.camel@ebony.2ndQuadrant> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.12.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Server-Quench: c8501783-1355-11de-aecc-001871e930f4 X-AuthRoute: OCdxZQATClZOTQEd DAteCiNZVAwpPBRK HVkIKg5MJUcNSQVJ NksachtFaQ1bYFhD HGQLW11EUF17XWB/ aQgfZQBDYEtPQQdo U1ZAQE1QEQdtHhxP WBxnUkEOd11GfXp0 ZEQsXHJaWQopfUN9 Q0lcFnAHZmJldWEe BBVFJlYHIx5Kfh5N bVEqXXANN2FJBC9q VzwLEgofGg96HWxt WAYVKkkbRQ4MEHYg WhYLFzEiVUMEV209 KAZuMVUVGE8bM0Ez LUppXlxQY1lOYiwg X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633235383639.cat.dmpriest.net.uk:1378/Kp X-Report-SPAM: If SPAM / abuse - report it at: http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Archive-Number: 200903/239 X-Sequence-Number: 33161 On Tue, 2009-03-17 at 19:54 -0400, Jignesh K. Shah wrote: > > Simon Riggs wrote: > > On Tue, 2009-03-17 at 17:41 -0400, Jignesh K. Shah wrote: > > > > > >> I did a quick test with patch. Unfortunately it improves my number > >> even with default setting 0 (not sure whether I should be pleased or > >> sad - Definitely no overhead infact seems to help performance a bit. > >> NOTE: Logic is same, implementation is slightly different for default > >> set) > >> > > > > OK, I bite. 25% gain from doing nothing??? You're stretching my... err, > > credulity. > > > > I like the train of thought for setting 1 and it is worth investigating, > > but something feels wrong somewhere. > > > > > Actually I think I am hurting my credibility here since I cannot > explain the improvement with the patch but still using default logic > (thought different way I compare sequential using fields from the > previous proc structure instead of comparing with constant boolean) > But the change was necessary to allow it to handle multiple algorithms > and yet be sleek and not bloated. > > In next couple of weeks I plan to test the patch on a different x64 > based system to do a sanity testing on lower number of cores and also > try out other workloads ... Good plan. I'm behind your ideas and will be happy to wait. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support