Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.208.211])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A504A633D77
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@mail.postgresql.org>;
	Mon, 16 Mar 2009 13:53:55 -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 77919-04
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@mail.postgresql.org>;
	Mon, 16 Mar 2009 13:53:53 -0300 (ADT)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from gwmta.wicourts.gov (gwmta.wicourts.gov [165.219.244.99])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 774796310AC
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Mon, 16 Mar 2009 13:53:49 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from Courts-MTA by gwmta.wicourts.gov
	with Novell_GroupWise; Mon, 16 Mar 2009 11:53:48 -0500
Message-Id: <49BE3DC3.EE98.0025.0@wicourts.gov>
X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 7.0.3 
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 11:53:39 -0500
From: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>
To: <david@lang.hm>,
	"Kevin Grittner" <Kgrittn.CCAP.Courts@wicourts.gov>
Cc: "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas@gmail.com>,
 "Greg Smith" <gsmith@gregsmith.com>,
	"pgsql-performance@postgresql.org" <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>,
	"Scott Carey" <scott@richrelevance.com>, "Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>,
	"Jignesh K. Shah" <J.K.Shah@sun.com>
Subject: Re: Proposal of tunable fix for scalability of 8.4
References: <alpine.GSO.2.01.0903121613270.1925@westnet.com>
	<C5DED7A7.33B2%scott@richrelevance.com>
	<603c8f070903121829r31cf1472ha9876e5c480a542e@mail.gmail.com><603c8f070903121829r31cf1472ha9876e5c480a542e@mail.gmail.com>
	<12292.1236964604@sss.pgh.pa.us> <49BA5960.EE98.0025.0@wicourts.gov>
	<alpine.DEB.1.10.0903132124470.6196@asgard>
	<49BE2E80.EE98.0025.0@wicourts.gov>
In-Reply-To: <49BE2E80.EE98.0025.0@wicourts.gov>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Archive-Number: 200903/213
X-Sequence-Number: 33135

I wrote: 
> One more reason this point is an interesting one is that it is one
> that gets *worse* with the suggested patch, if only by half a
percent.
>  
> Without:
>  
> 600: 80: Medium Throughput: 82632.000 Avg Medium Resp: 0.005
>  
> with:
>  
> 600: 80: Medium Throughput: 82241.000 Avg Medium Resp: 0.005
 
Oops.  A later version:
 
> Redid the test with - waking up all waiters irrespective of shared, 
> exclusive
 
> 600: 80: Medium Throughput: 82920.000 Avg Medium Resp: 0.005
 
The one that showed the decreased performance at 800 was:
 
> a modified Fix (not the original one that I proposed but something
> that works like a heart valve : Opens and shuts to minimum 
> default way thus  controlling how many waiters are waked up )
 
-Kevin