From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Nils Goroll <slink(at)schokola(dot)de> |
Cc: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Update on the spinlock->pthread_mutex patch experimental: replace s_lock spinlock code with pthread_mutex on linux |
Date: | 2012-07-01 12:23:06 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYBmgT8t4koX_deKPFbn-xP3xXgL87T+ruUNTY9MNERfQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 1:07 PM, Nils Goroll <slink(at)schokola(dot)de> wrote:
>> FWIW, I kicked off a looong benchmarking run on this a couple of days
>> ago on the IBM POWER7 box, testing pgbench -S, regular pgbench, and
>> pgbench --unlogged-tables at various client counts with and without
>> the patch; three half-hour test runs for each test configuration. It
>> should be done tonight and I will post the results once they're in.
>
> Sounds great! I am really curious.
Here are the results. Each result is the median of three 30-minute
test runs on an IBM POWER7 system with 16 cores, 64 hardware threads.
Configuration was shared_buffers = 8GB, maintenance_work_mem = 1GB,
synchronous_commit = off, checkpoint_segments = 300,
checkpoint_timeout = 15min, checkpoint_completion_target = 0.9,
wal_writer_delay = 20ms, log_line_prefix = '%t [%p] '. Lines
beginning with m show performance on master; lines beginning with p
show performance with patch; the following number is the # of clients
used for the test.
Permanent Tables
================
m01 tps = 1364.521373 (including connections establishing)
m08 tps = 9175.281381 (including connections establishing)
m32 tps = 14770.652793 (including connections establishing)
m64 tps = 14183.495875 (including connections establishing)
p01 tps = 1366.447001 (including connections establishing)
p08 tps = 9406.181857 (including connections establishing)
p32 tps = 14608.766540 (including connections establishing)
p64 tps = 14182.576636 (including connections establishing)
Unlogged Tables
===============
m01 tps = 1459.649000 (including connections establishing)
m08 tps = 11872.102025 (including connections establishing)
m32 tps = 32834.258026 (including connections establishing)
m64 tps = 33404.988834 (including connections establishing)
p01 tps = 1481.876584 (including connections establishing)
p08 tps = 11787.657258 (including connections establishing)
p32 tps = 32959.342248 (including connections establishing)
p64 tps = 33672.008244 (including connections establishing)
SELECT-only
===========
m01 tps = 8777.971832 (including connections establishing)
m08 tps = 70695.558964 (including connections establishing)
m32 tps = 201762.696020 (including connections establishing)
m64 tps = 310137.544470 (including connections establishing)
p01 tps = 8914.165586 (including connections establishing)
p08 tps = 71351.501358 (including connections establishing)
p32 tps = 201946.425301 (including connections establishing)
p64 tps = 305627.413716 (including connections establishing)
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kohei KaiGai | 2012-07-01 14:53:47 | Re: [v9.3] Row-Level Security |
Previous Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2012-07-01 11:11:52 | Re: [PATCH 14/16] Add module to apply changes from an apply-cache using low-level functions |