On Tue, Aug 8, 2023 at 3:10 AM Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 2023-08-07 23:05:39 +0900, Masahiko Sawada wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 7, 2023 at 3:16 PM David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, 2 Aug 2023 at 13:35, David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > So, it looks like this item can be closed off. I'll hold off from
> > > > doing that for a few days just in case anyone else wants to give
> > > > feedback or test themselves.
> > >
> > > Alright, closed.
> >
> > IIUC the problem with multiple concurrent COPY is not resolved yet.
>
> Yea - it was just hard to analyze until the other regressions were fixed.
>
>
> > The result of nclients = 1 became better thanks to recent fixes, but
> > there still seems to be the performance regression at nclient = 2~16
> > (on RHEL 8 and 9). Andres reported[1] that after changing
> > MAX_BUFFERED_TUPLES to 5000 the numbers became a lot better but it
> > would not be the solution, as he mentioned.
>
> I think there could be a quite simple fix: Track by how much we've extended
> the relation previously in the same bistate. If we already extended by many
> blocks, it's very likey that we'll do so further.
>
> A simple prototype patch attached. The results for me are promising. I copied
> a smaller file [1], to have more accurate throughput results at shorter runs
> (15s).
Thank you for the patch!
>
> HEAD before:
> clients tps
> 1 41
> 2 76
> 4 136
> 8 248
> 16 360
> 32 375
> 64 317
>
>
> HEAD after:
> clients tps
> 1 43
> 2 80
> 4 155
> 8 280
> 16 369
> 32 405
> 64 344
>
> Any chance you could your benchmark? I don't see as much of a regression vs 16
> as you...
Sure. The results are promising for me too:
nclients = 1, execution time = 13.743
nclients = 2, execution time = 7.552
nclients = 4, execution time = 4.758
nclients = 8, execution time = 3.035
nclients = 16, execution time = 2.172
nclients = 32, execution time = 1.959
nclients = 64, execution time = 1.819
nclients = 128, execution time = 1.583
nclients = 256, execution time = 1.631
Here are results of the same benchmark test you used:
w/o patch:
clients tps
1 66.702
2 59.696
4 73.783
8 168.115
16 400.134
32 574.098
64 565.373
128 526.303
256 591.751
w/ patch:
clients tps
1 67.735
2 122.534
4 240.707
8 398.944
16 541.097
32 643.083
64 614.775
128 616.007
256 577.885
Regards,
--
Masahiko Sawada
Amazon Web Services: https://aws.amazon.com