Re: pgbench rate limiting changes transaction latency computation

From: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: pgbench rate limiting changes transaction latency computation
Date: 2019-06-12 06:31:39
Message-ID: dd6fbb38-9048-16ea-e1b2-f5013c5489f7@iki.fi
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 12/06/2019 02:24, Andres Freund wrote:
> But anyway, to go forward, I think we should replace 'lat' with a
> 'txtime' (or similar) column that is not affected by -R. And then, under
> -R only, add a new 'txlat' column, that shows the 'current' meaning of
> lat under -R. Not convinced the names are right, but you get the gist.

I'm OK with that.

>> For testing the server under full load, like during that catch up period,
>> testing without -R seems better.
>
> One area in which postgres is pretty weak, although less bad than we
> used to be, is in is predicatable latency. Most production servers
> aren't run under the highest possible throughput, therefore optimizing
> jitter under loaded but not breakneck speeds is important.
>
> And to be able to localize where such latency is introduced, it's
> important to see the precise moment things got slower / where
> performance recovered.

I agree with all that. I'm still not convinced the changes you're
proposing will help much, but if you would find it useful, I can't argue
with that.

- Heikki

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Amit Langote 2019-06-12 06:33:35 Re: BEFORE UPDATE trigger on postgres_fdw table not work
Previous Message Siarhei Siniak 2019-06-12 06:30:48 Re: GiST limits on contrib/cube with dimension > 100?