| From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Alexander Lakhin <exclusion(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, MARK CALLAGHAN <mdcallag(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: benchmark results comparing versions 15.2 and 16 |
| Date: | 2023-05-16 00:54:53 |
| Message-ID: | 20230516005453.wrsldqhhbpy5gfnd@awork3.anarazel.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2023-05-16 09:42:31 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > I get quite variable performance if I don't pin client / server to the same
> > core, but even the slow performance is faster than 45k.
>
> Okay. You mean with something like taskset or similar, I guess?
Yes. numactl --physcpubind ... in my case. Linux has an optimization where it
does not need to send an IPI when the client and server are scheduled on the
same core. For single threaded ping-pong tasks like pgbench -c1, that can make
a huge difference, particularly on larger CPUs. So you get a lot better
performance when forcing things to be colocated.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andres Freund | 2023-05-16 01:01:02 | Re: Introduce WAIT_EVENT_EXTENSION and WAIT_EVENT_BUFFER_PIN |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2023-05-16 00:42:31 | Re: benchmark results comparing versions 15.2 and 16 |