| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Speed up Clog Access by increasing CLOG buffers |
| Date: | 2016-10-12 18:55:26 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmobjO01bJ2caVWOzU=PuoKfx1X6epGokhHD8fc9hVwkhKw@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 3:21 AM, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> I think at higher client count from client count 96 onwards contention
> on CLogControlLock is clearly visible and which is completely solved
> with group lock patch.
>
> And at lower client count 32,64 contention on CLogControlLock is not
> significant hence we can not see any gain with group lock patch.
> (though we can see some contention on CLogControlLock is reduced at 64
> clients.)
I agree with these conclusions. I had a chance to talk with Andres
this morning at Postgres Vision and based on that conversation I'd
like to suggest a couple of additional tests:
1. Repeat this test on x86. In particular, I think you should test on
the EnterpriseDB server cthulhu, which is an 8-socket x86 server.
2. Repeat this test with a mixed read-write workload, like -b
tpcb-like(at)1 -b select-only(at)9
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2016-10-12 18:59:45 | Re: Non-empty default log_line_prefix |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-10-12 18:55:02 | Re: int2vector and btree indexes |