On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 9:20 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 6:50 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 22, 2016 at 7:44 PM, Tomas Vondra
>> <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>>> I don't dare to suggest rejecting the patch, but I don't see how we could
>>> commit any of the patches at this point. So perhaps "returned with feedback"
>>> and resubmitting in the next CF (along with analysis of improved workloads)
>>> would be appropriate.
>>
>> I think it would be useful to have some kind of theoretical analysis
>> of how much time we're spending waiting for various locks. So, for
>> example, suppose we one run of these tests with various client counts
>> - say, 1, 8, 16, 32, 64, 96, 128, 192, 256 - and we run "select
>> wait_event from pg_stat_activity" once per second throughout the test.
>> Then we see how many times we get each wait event, including NULL (no
>> wait event). Now, from this, we can compute the approximate
>> percentage of time we're spending waiting on CLogControlLock and every
>> other lock, too, as well as the percentage of time we're not waiting
>> for lock. That, it seems to me, would give us a pretty clear idea
>> what the maximum benefit we could hope for from reducing contention on
>> any given lock might be.
>>
> As mentioned earlier, such an activity makes sense, however today,
> again reading this thread, I noticed that Dilip has already posted
> some analysis of lock contention upthread [1]. It is clear that patch
> has reduced LWLock contention from ~28% to ~4% (where the major
> contributor was TransactionIdSetPageStatus which has reduced from ~53%
> to ~3%). Isn't it inline with what you are looking for?
Hmm, yes. But it's a little hard to interpret what that means; I
think the test I proposed in the quoted material above would provide
clearer data.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company