| From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(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: | 2016-10-31 19:43:56 |
| Message-ID: | CAA4eK1KC6uQHWhOMmkoACx1OJeKjcGxMU42WapjFVvN6FFuxJQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 7:58 PM, Tomas Vondra
<tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> On 10/31/2016 02:51 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> And moreover, this setup (single device for the whole cluster) is very
> common, we can't just neglect it.
>
> But my main point here really is that the trade-off in those cases may not
> be really all that great, because you get the best performance at 36/72
> clients, and then the tps drops and variability increases. At least not
> right now, before tackling contention on the WAL lock (or whatever lock
> becomes the bottleneck).
>
Okay, but does wait event results show increase in contention on some
other locks for pgbench-3000-logged-sync-skip-64? Can you share wait
events for the runs where there is a fluctuation?
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jim Nasby | 2016-10-31 20:24:13 | Increase pltcl test coverage |
| Previous Message | Jim Nasby | 2016-10-31 19:17:37 | Fix bug in handling of dropped columns in pltcl triggers |