From: | Bernd Helmle <mailings(at)oopsware(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Alexander Korotkov <a(dot)korotkov(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: LWLock optimization for multicore Power machines |
Date: | 2017-02-21 14:54:14 |
Message-ID: | 1487688854.3143.3.camel@oopsware.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Am Dienstag, den 14.02.2017, 15:53 +0300 schrieb Alexander Korotkov:
> +1
> And you could try to use pg_wait_sampling
> <https://github.com/postgrespro/pg_wait_sampling> to sampling of wait
> events.
I've tried this with your example from your blog post[1] and got this:
(pgbench scale 1000)
pgbench -Mprepared -S -n -c 100 -j 100 -T 300 -P2 pgbench2
SELECT-only:
SELECT * FROM profile_log ;
ts | event_type | event | count
----------------------------+---------------+---------------+-------
2017-02-21 15:21:52.45719 | LWLockNamed | ProcArrayLock | 8
2017-02-21 15:22:11.19594 | LWLockTranche | lock_manager | 1
2017-02-21 15:22:11.19594 | LWLockNamed | ProcArrayLock | 24
2017-02-21 15:22:31.220803 | LWLockNamed | ProcArrayLock | 1
2017-02-21 15:23:01.255969 | LWLockNamed | ProcArrayLock | 1
2017-02-21 15:23:11.272254 | LWLockNamed | ProcArrayLock | 2
2017-02-21 15:23:41.313069 | LWLockNamed | ProcArrayLock | 1
2017-02-21 15:24:31.37512 | LWLockNamed | ProcArrayLock | 19
2017-02-21 15:24:41.386974 | LWLockNamed | ProcArrayLock | 1
2017-02-21 15:26:41.530399 | LWLockNamed | ProcArrayLock | 1
(10 rows)
writes pgbench runs have far more events logged, see the attached text
file. Maybe this is of interest...
[1] http://akorotkov.github.io/blog/2016/03/25/wait_monitoring_9_6/
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
wait_sampling_profile_writes.txt | text/plain | 22.8 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2017-02-21 15:01:13 | Re: GUC for cleanup indexes threshold. |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2017-02-21 14:51:04 | Re: drop support for Python 2.3 |