Re: Postgres with pthread

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Konstantin Knizhnik <k(dot)knizhnik(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Postgres with pthread
Date: 2017-12-06 16:53:21
Message-ID: 23450.1512579201@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Konstantin Knizhnik <k(dot)knizhnik(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> writes:
> Below are some results (1000xTPS) of select-only (-S) pgbench with scale
> 100 at my desktop with quad-core i7-4770 3.40GHz and 16Gb of RAM:

> Connections    Vanilla/default       Vanilla/prepared
> pthreads/defaultpthreads/prepared
> 10                    100 191                      
> 106                         207
> 100                  67 131                      
> 105                         168
> 1000                41 65                        
> 55                           102

This table is so mangled that I'm not very sure what it's saying.
Maybe you should have made it an attachment?

However, if I guess at which numbers are supposed to be what,
it looks like even the best case is barely a 50% speedup.
That would be worth pursuing if it were reasonably low-hanging
fruit, but converting PG to threads seems very far from being that.

I think you've done us a very substantial service by pursuing
this far enough to get some quantifiable performance results.
But now that we have some results in hand, I think we're best
off sticking with the architecture we've got.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrzej Barszcz 2017-12-06 16:53:44 views
Previous Message Konstantin Knizhnik 2017-12-06 16:40:00 Postgres with pthread