Re: Improving connection scalability (src/backend/storage/ipc/procarray.c)

On 5/28/22 02:15, Ranier Vilela wrote:
>
>
> Em sex., 27 de mai. de 2022 às 18:08, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de
> <mailto:andres@anarazel.de>> escreveu:
>
>     Hi,
>
>     On 2022-05-27 03:30:46 +0200, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>     > On 5/27/22 02:11, Ranier Vilela wrote:
>     > > ./pgbench -M prepared -c $conns -j $conns -T 60 -S -n -U postgres
>     > >
>     > > pgbench (15beta1)
>     > > transaction type: <builtin: select only>
>     > > scaling factor: 1
>     > > query mode: prepared
>     > > number of clients: 100
>     > > number of threads: 100
>     > > maximum number of tries: 1
>     > > duration: 60 s
>     > >
>     > > conns            tps head              tps patched
>     > >
>     > > 1         17126.326108            17792.414234
>     > > 10       82068.123383            82468.334836
>     > > 50       73808.731404            74678.839428
>     > > 80       73290.191713            73116.553986
>     > > 90       67558.483043            68384.906949
>     > > 100     65960.982801            66997.793777
>     > > 200     62216.011998            62870.243385
>     > > 300     62924.225658            62796.157548
>     > > 400     62278.099704            63129.555135
>     > > 500     63257.930870            62188.825044
>     > > 600     61479.890611            61517.913967
>     > > 700     61139.354053            61327.898847
>     > > 800     60833.663791            61517.913967
>     > > 900     61305.129642            61248.336593
>     > > 1000   60990.918719            61041.670996
>     > >
>     >
>     > These results look much saner, but IMHO it also does not show any
>     clear
>     > benefit of the patch. Or are you still claiming there is a benefit?
>
>     They don't look all that sane to me - isn't that way lower than one
>     would
>     expect?
>
> Yes, quite disappointing.
>
>     Restricting both client and server to the same four cores, a
>     thermically challenged older laptop I have around I get 150k tps at
>     both 10
>     and 100 clients.
>
> And you can share the benchmark details? Hardware, postgres and pgbench,
> please?
>
>
>     Either way, I'd not expect to see any GetSnapshotData() scalability
>     effects to
>     show up on an "Intel® Core™ i5-8250U CPU Quad Core" - there's just
>     not enough
>     concurrency.
>
> This means that our customers will not see any connections scalability
> with PG15, using the simplest hardware?
>

No. It means that on 4-core machine GetSnapshotData() is unlikely to be
a bottleneck, because you'll hit various other bottlenecks way earlier.

I personally doubt it even makes sense to worry about scaling to this
many connections on such tiny system too much.

>
>     The correct pieces of these changes seem very unlikely to affect
>     GetSnapshotData() performance meaningfully.
>
>     To improve something like GetSnapshotData() you first have to come
>     up with a
>     workload that shows it being a meaningful part of a profile. Unless
>     it is,
>     performance differences are going to just be due to various forms of
>     noise.
>
> Actually in the profiles I got with perf, GetSnapShotData() didn't show up.
>

But that's exactly the point Andres is trying to make - if you don't see
GetSnapshotData() in the perf profile, why do you think optimizing it
will have any meaningful impact on throughput?

regards

--
Tomas Vondra
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company