From: Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.com>
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com>
Cc: Jignesh K. Shah <J.K.Shah@sun.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] 8.3beta1 testing on Solaris
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 19:56:56 -0700
Message-ID: <200710251956.56744.josh@agliodbs.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <29721.1193359867@sss.pgh.pa.us>
References: <4720FB72.8060800@sun.com>
<871wbi95nb.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com>
<29721.1193359867@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Tom,
> It's still true that I'm leery of a large increase in the number of
> buffers without reengineering slru.c. That code was written on the
> assumption that there were few enough buffers that a linear search
> would be fine. I'd hold still for 16, or maybe even 32, but I dunno
> how much impact that will have for such a test case.
Actually, 32 made a significant difference as I recall ... do you still have
the figures for that, Jignesh?
The test case is a workload called "iGen" which is a "fixed" TPCC-like
workload. I've been trying to talk Sun into open-sourcing it, but no dice so
far. It is heavy on writes, and (like TPCC) consists mostly of one-line
transactions.
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL @ Sun
San Francisco
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: josh@agliodbs.com, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, stark@enterprisedb.com, J.K.Shah@sun.com, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] 8.3beta1 testing on Solaris
In-Reply-To: <200710251956.56744.josh@agliodbs.com>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox