Re: profiling pgbench

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: profiling pgbench
Date: 2010-11-24 22:34:46
Message-ID: AANLkTikK=ygsba=tP_eEi75Hdc1rp21Ko8KYiG_EuUT=@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 5:33 PM, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 1:19 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
>> On Wednesday 24 November 2010 22:14:04 Andres Freund wrote:
>>> On Wednesday 24 November 2010 21:24:43 Robert Haas wrote:
>>>
>>> Recarding LWLockAcquire costs:
>>> Yes, its pretty noticeable - on loads of different usages. On a bunch of
>>> production machines its the second (begind XLogInsert) on some the most
>>> expensive function. Most of the time
>
>> AllocSetAlloc is the third, battling with hash_search_with_hash value. To
>> complete that sentence...
>
> I've played a bit with hash_search_with_hash_value and found that most
> of the time is spent on shared hash tables, not private ones.  And the
> time attributed to it for the shared hash tables mostly seems to be
> due to the time it takes to fight cache lines away from other CPUs.  I
> suspect the same thing is true of LWLockAcquire.

How do you get stats on that?

How big is a typical cache line on modern CPUs?

--
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 Andres Freund 2010-11-24 22:38:27 Re: profiling pgbench
Previous Message Jeff Janes 2010-11-24 22:33:22 Re: profiling pgbench