Re: WAL Insertion Lock Improvements

From: Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz>
To: Bharath Rupireddy <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: WAL Insertion Lock Improvements
Date: 2023-05-10 23:31:06
Message-ID: ZFwpOqunSz6wHMR7@paquier.xyz
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 10:40:20PM +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> test-case 2: -T900, WAL ~256 bytes - ran for about 3.5 hours and the
> more than 3X improvement in TPS is seen - 3.11X @ 512 3.79 @ 768, 3.47
> @ 1024, 2.27 @ 2048, 2.77 @ 4096
>
> [...]
>
> test-case 2: -t1000000, WAL ~256 bytes - ran for more than 12 hours
> and the maximum improvement is 1.84X @ 1024 client.

Thanks. So that's pretty close to what I was seeing when it comes to
this message size where you see much more effects under a number of
clients of at least 512~. Any of these tests have been using fsync =
on, I assume. I think that disabling fsync or just mounting pg_wal to
a tmpfs should show the same pattern for larger record sizes (after 1k
of message size the curve begins to go down with 512~ clients).
--
Michael

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Michael Paquier 2023-05-10 23:34:29 Re: [PATCH] Add native windows on arm64 support
Previous Message David Rowley 2023-05-10 22:27:28 Re: benchmark results comparing versions 15.2 and 16