From: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Scaling XLog insertion (was Re: Moving more work outside WALInsertLock) |
Date: | 2012-03-09 10:04:03 |
Message-ID: | 4F59D593.5060009@enterprisedb.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 07.03.2012 17:28, Tom Lane wrote:
> Simon Riggs<simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
>> On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 3:04 PM, Tom Lane<tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>> Alvaro Herrera<alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
>>>> So they are undoubtely rare. Not sure if as rare as Higgs bosons.
>
>>> Even if they're rare, having a major performance hiccup when one happens
>>> is not a side-effect I want to see from a patch whose only reason to
>>> exist is better performance.
>
>> I agree the effect you point out can exist, I just don't want to slow
>> down the main case as a result.
>
> I don't see any reason to think that what I suggested would slow things
> down, especially not if the code were set up to fall through quickly in
> the typical case where no page boundary is crossed. Integer division is
> not slow on any machine made in the last 15 years or so.
Agreed. I wasn't worried about the looping with extra-large records, but
might as well not do it.
Here's an updated patch. It now only loops once per segment that a
record crosses. Plus a lot of other small cleanup.
I've been doing some performance testing with this, using a simple C
function that just inserts a dummy WAL record of given size. I'm not
totally satisfied. Although the patch helps with scalability at 3-4
concurrent backends doing WAL insertions, it seems to slow down the
single-client case with small WAL records by about 5-10%. This is what
Robert also saw with an earlier version of the patch
(http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2011-12/msg01223.php). I
tested this with the data directory on a RAM drive, unfortunately I
don't have a server with a hard drive that can sustain the high
insertion rate. I'll post more detailed results, once I've refined the
tests a bit.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Fujii Masao | 2012-03-09 10:24:13 | Re: pg_prewarm |
Previous Message | Devrim GÜNDÜZ | 2012-03-09 09:18:47 | Re: pg_prewarm |