From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Mithun Cy <mithun(dot)cy(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: POC: Cache data in GetSnapshotData() |
Date: | 2017-09-21 01:55:16 |
Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZ1cG4wLzAyt9+0ktjyVkfu8EPE7Ae2AXX44X-EYn4=Ww@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 9:46 PM, Mithun Cy <mithun(dot)cy(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> I think there is some confusion above results is for pgbench simple update
> (-N) tests where cached snapshot gets invalidated, I have run this to check
> if there is any regression due to frequent cache invalidation and did not
> find any. The target test for the above patch is read-only case [1] where we
> can see the performance improvement as high as 39% (@256 threads) on
> Cthulhu(a 8 socket numa machine with 64 CPU cores). At 64 threads ( = CPU
> cores) we have 5% improvement and at clients 128 = (2 * CPU cores =
> hyperthreads) we have 17% improvement.
>
> Clients BASE CODE With patch %Imp
>
> 64 452475.929144 476195.952736 5.2422730281
>
> 128 556207.727932 653256.029012 17.4482115595
>
> 256 494336.282804 691614.000463 39.9075941867
Oh, you're right. I was confused.
But now I'm confused about something else: if you're seeing a clear
gain at higher-client counts, why is Jesper Pederson not seeing the
same thing? Do you have results for a 2-socket machine? Maybe this
only helps with >2 sockets.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Mithun Cy | 2017-09-21 02:04:59 | Re: POC: Cache data in GetSnapshotData() |
Previous Message | Mithun Cy | 2017-09-21 01:46:54 | Re: POC: Cache data in GetSnapshotData() |