Re: POC: Cache data in GetSnapshotData()

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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()