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 CAA4eK1JiOOKN73yC3rHqF_F+yKEFfn15Gh9iitT-=7Q5BuCs=Q@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Speed up Clog Access by increasing CLOG buffers  (Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>)
Ответы Re: Speed up Clog Access by increasing CLOG buffers  (Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 12:05 PM, Tomas Vondra
<tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> After collecting a lot more results from multiple kernel versions, I can
> confirm that I see a significant improvement with 128 and 192 clients,
> roughly by 30%:
>
>                            64        128        192
>     ------------------------------------------------
>      master             62482      43181      50985
>      granular-locking   61701      59611      47483
>      no-content-lock    62650      59819      47895
>      group-update       63702      64758      62596
>
> But I only see this with Dilip's workload, and only with pre-4.3.0 kernels
> (the results above are from kernel 3.19).
>

That appears positive.

> With 4.5.5, results for the same benchmark look like this:
>
>                            64        128        192
>     ------------------------------------------------
>      master             35693      39822      42151
>      granular-locking   35370      39409      41353
>      no-content-lock    36201      39848      42407
>      group-update       35697      39893      42667
>
> That seems like a fairly bad regression in kernel, although I have not
> identified the feature/commit causing it (and it's also possible the issue
> lies somewhere else, of course).
>
> With regular pgbench, I see no improvement on any kernel version. For
> example on 3.19 the results look like this:
>
>                            64        128        192
>     ------------------------------------------------
>      master             54661      61014      59484
>      granular-locking   55904      62481      60711
>      no-content-lock    56182      62442      61234
>      group-update       55019      61587      60485
>

Are the above results with synchronous_commit=off?

> I haven't done much more testing (e.g. with -N to eliminate collisions on
> branches) yet, let's see if it changes anything.
>

Yeah, let us see how it behaves with -N.  Also, I think we could try
at higher scale factor?


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



В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Rajkumar Raghuwanshi
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Declarative partitioning - another take
Следующее
От: Tomas Vondra
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Patch: Write Amplification Reduction Method (WARM)