Re: Improving connection scalability: GetSnapshotData()
| От | Konstantin Knizhnik | 
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Improving connection scalability: GetSnapshotData() | 
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 311c62b6-b584-1db8-26aa-07f38c296fdd@postgrespro.ru обсуждение исходный текст | 
| Ответ на | Re: Improving connection scalability: GetSnapshotData() (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>) | 
| Ответы | Re: Improving connection scalability: GetSnapshotData() | 
| Список | pgsql-hackers | 
On 06.09.2020 21:56, Andres Freund wrote: > > Hm, that is interesting / odd. If you record a profile with call graphs > (e.g. --call-graph dwarf), where are all the LWLockAttemptLock calls > comming from? > Attached. > I assume the machine you're talking about is an 8 socket machine? > > What if you: > a) start postgres and pgbench with numactl --interleave=all > b) start postgres with numactl --interleave=0,1 --cpunodebind=0,1 --membind=0,1 > in case you have 4 sockets, or 0,1,2,3 in case you have 8 sockets? > TPS for -c 100 --interleave=all 1168910 --interleave=0,1 1232557 --interleave=0,1,2,3 1254271 --cpunodebind=0,1,2,3 --membind=0,1,2,3 1237237 --cpunodebind=0,1 --membind=0,1 1420211 --cpunodebind=0 --membind=0 1101203 >> And which pgbench database scale factor you have used? > 200 > > Another thing you could try is to run 2-4 pgench instances in different > databases. I tried to reinitialize database with scale 200 but there was no significant improvement in performance.
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: