Re: Speed up Clog Access by increasing CLOG buffers

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Amit Kapila
Тема Re: Speed up Clog Access by increasing CLOG buffers
Дата
Msg-id CAA4eK1JBoStBJyb0gH=n6NszYNfezKm+Fo+uwphgY-0mtThxiw@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Speed up Clog Access by increasing CLOG buffers  (Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 7:02 PM, Tomas Vondra
<tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>
> The remaining benchmark with 512 clog buffers completed, and the impact
> roughly matches Dilip's benchmark - that is, increasing the number of clog
> buffers eliminates all positive impact of the patches observed on 128
> buffers. Compare these two reports:
>
> [a] http://tvondra.bitbucket.org/#pgbench-3000-logged-sync-noskip-retest
>
> [b] http://tvondra.bitbucket.org/#pgbench-3000-logged-sync-noskip-retest-512
>
> With 128 buffers the group_update and granular_locking patches achieve up to
> 50k tps, while master and no_content_lock do ~30k tps. After increasing
> number of clog buffers, we get only ~30k in all cases.
>
> I'm not sure what's causing this, whether we're hitting limits of the simple
> LRU cache used for clog buffers, or something else.
>

I have also seen previously that increasing clog buffers to 256 can
impact performance negatively.  So, probably here the gains due to
group_update patch is negated due to the impact of increasing clog
buffers.   I am not sure if it is good idea to see the impact of
increasing clog buffers along with this patch.

-- 
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com



В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Andres Freund
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Dumb mistakes in WalSndWriteData()
Следующее
От: Kouhei Kaigai
Дата:
Сообщение: PassDownLimitBound for ForeignScan/CustomScan [take-2]