Re: Write Ahead Logging for Hash Indexes

From: Mark Kirkwood <mark(dot)kirkwood(at)catalyst(dot)net(dot)nz>
To: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Ashutosh Sharma <ashu(dot)coek88(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Write Ahead Logging for Hash Indexes
Date: 2016-09-11 09:31:08
Message-ID: 9839a321-f655-998f-c42b-89b52dd7e7f8@catalyst.net.nz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 11/09/16 19:16, Mark Kirkwood wrote:

>
>
> On 11/09/16 17:01, Amit Kapila wrote:
>> ...Do you think we can do some read-only
>> workload benchmarking using this server? If yes, then probably you
>> can use concurrent hash index patch [1] and cache the metapage patch
>> [2] (I think Mithun needs to rebase his patch) to do so.
>>
>>
>>
>> [1] -
>> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAA4eK1J6b8O4PcEPqRxNYbLVbfToNMJEEm+qn0jZX31-obXrJw@mail.gmail.com
>> [2] -
>> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAD__OuhJ29CeBif_fLGe4t9Vj_-cFXBwCXhjO+D_16TXbemY+g@mail.gmail.com
>>
>>
>
> I can do - are we checking checking for hangs/assertions or comparing
> patched vs unpatched performance (for the metapage patch)?
>
>

So, assuming the latter - testing performance with and without the
metapage patch:

For my 1st runs:

- cpus 16, ran 16G
- size 100, clients 32

I'm seeing no difference in performance for read only (-S) pgbench
workload (with everybody using has indexes). I guess not that surprising
as the db fites in ram (1.6G and we have 16G). So I'll retry with a
bigger dataset (suspect size 2000 is needed).

regards

Mark

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Paul Guo 2016-09-11 09:56:33 Use nanosleep() for pg_usleep() on Unix/Linux?
Previous Message Mark Kirkwood 2016-09-11 07:16:04 Re: Write Ahead Logging for Hash Indexes