From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: POC: Cache data in GetSnapshotData() |
Date: | 2015-05-25 18:40:05 |
Message-ID: | 20150525184005.GN32396@alap3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2015-05-20 19:56:39 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> I have done some tests with this patch to see the benefit with
> and it seems to me this patch helps in reducing the contention
> around ProcArrayLock, though the increase in TPS (in tpc-b tests
> is around 2~4%) is not very high.
>
> pgbench (TPC-B test)
> ./pgbench -c 64 -j 64 -T 1200 -M prepared postgres
Hm, so it's a read mostly test. I probably not that badly contended on
the snapshot acquisition itself. I'd guess a 80/20 read/write mix or so
would be more interesting for the cases where we hit this really bad.
> Without Patch (HEAD - e5f455f5) - Commit used is slightly old, but I
> don't think that matters for this test.
Agreed, shouldn't make much of a difference.
> +1 to proceed with this patch for 9.6, as I think this patch improves the
> situation with compare to current.
Yea, I think so too.
> Also I have seen crash once in below test scenario:
> Crashed in test with scale-factor - 300, other settings same as above:
> ./pgbench -c 128 -j 128 -T 1800 -M prepared postgres
The patch as is really is just a proof of concept. I wrote it during a
talk the flight back from fosdem...
Thanks for the look.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2015-05-25 18:55:54 | Re: Run pgindent now? |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2015-05-25 18:25:54 | Re: Run pgindent now? |