Re: heads up: Fix for intel hardware bug will lead to performance regressions

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: heads up: Fix for intel hardware bug will lead to performance regressions
Date: 2018-01-04 17:28:31
Message-ID: CA+Tgmobs0YsYKPbhf_9DcrbO2xtso4A18jO+p=_hTw8x8abFLQ@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 5:23 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> To get closer to the worst case, I've also measured:
>
> pgbench SELECT 1, 16 clients, i7-6820HQ CPU (skylake):
>
> pti=off:
> tps = 420490.162391
>
> pti=on:
> tps = 350746.065039 (~0.83x)
>
> pti=on, nopcid:
> tps = 324269.903152 (~0.77x)
>
>
> Note that real-world scenarios probably will see somewhat smaller
> impact, as this was measured over a loopback unix sockets which'll have
> smaller overhead itself than proper TCP sockets + actual network.

What about scenarios with longer-running queries?

Is it feasible to think about reducing the number of system calls we
issue in cases that weren't previously worth optimizing?

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Robert Haas 2018-01-04 17:29:58 Re: [HACKERS] MERGE SQL Statement for PG11
Previous Message Tom Lane 2018-01-04 17:11:37 Re: pgsql: Add parallel-aware hash joins.