Re: [HACKERS] Re: v7.1b4 bad performance

From: Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Schmidt, Peter" <peter(dot)schmidt(at)prismedia(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Re: v7.1b4 bad performance
Date: 2001-02-21 01:53:45
Message-ID: 3A931FA9.1D698302@tpf.co.jp
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-admin pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > platform) i686-pc-linux-gnu, compiled by GCC egcs-2.91.60(turbolinux 4.2)
> > min delay) 10msec according to your test program.
> > -B) 64 (all other settings are default)
>
> Thanks. Could I trouble you to run it again with a larger -B, say
> 1024 or 2048? What I've found is that at -B 64, the benchmark is
> so constrained by limited buffer space that it doesn't reflect
> performance at a more realistic production setting.
>

Hmm the result doesn't seem that obvious.

First I got the following result.
[CommitDelay=0]
1)tps = 23.024648(including connections establishing)
tps = 23.856420(excluding connections establishing)
2)tps = 30.276270(including connections establishing)
tps = 30.996459(excluding connections establishing)
[CommitDelay=1]
1)tps = 23.065921(including connections establishing)
tps = 23.866029(excluding connections establishing)
2)tps = 34.024632(including connections establishing)
tps = 35.671566(excluding connections establishing)

The result seems inconstant and after disabling
checkpoint process I got the following.

[CommitDelay=0]
1)tps = 24.060970(including connections establishing)
tps = 24.416851(excluding connections establishing)
2)tps = 21.361134(including connections establishing)
tps = 21.605583(excluding connections establishing)
3)tps = 20.377635(including connections establishing)
tps = 20.646523(excluding connections establishing)
[CommitDelay=1]
1)tps = 22.164379(including connections establishing)
tps = 22.790772(excluding connections establishing)
2)tps = 22.719068(including connections establishing)
tps = 23.040485(excluding connections establishing)
3)tps = 24.341675(including connections establishing)
tps = 25.869479(excluding connections establishing)

Unfortunately I have no more time to check today.
Please check the similar test case.

[My test case]
I created and initialized 10 datatabases as follows.
1) create databases.
createdb inoue1
craetedb inoue2
.
createdb inoue10
2) pgbench -i inoue1
pgbench -i inoue2
.
pgbench -i inoue10
3) invoke a modified pgbench
pgbench -c 10 -t 100 inoue

I've attached a patch to change pgbench so that
each connection connects to different database
whose name is 'xxxx%d'(xxxx is the specified
database? name).

Regards,
Hiroshi Inoue

Attachment Content-Type Size
cvs.diff text/plain 1.6 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-admin by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Hiroshi Inoue 2001-02-21 03:35:53 Re: Re: [ADMIN] v7.1b4 bad performance
Previous Message Schmidt, Peter 2001-02-20 23:34:39 RE: [HACKERS] Re: v7.1b4 bad performance

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Hiroshi Inoue 2001-02-21 03:35:53 Re: Re: [ADMIN] v7.1b4 bad performance
Previous Message Tom Lane 2001-02-21 00:59:55 Re: File header