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: Speed up Clog Access by increasing CLOG buffers |
Date: | 2016-03-31 10:18:05 |
Message-ID: | 20160331101804.GD23562@awork2.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2016-03-31 15:07:22 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 4:39 AM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> >
> > On 2016-03-28 22:50:49 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > > On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 8:01 PM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> >
> > Amit, could you run benchmarks on your bigger hardware? Both with
> > USE_CONTENT_LOCK commented out and in?
> >
>
> Yes.
Cool.
> > I think we should go for 1) and 2) unconditionally.
> Yes, that makes sense. On 20 min read-write pgbench --unlogged-tables
> benchmark, I see that with HEAD Tps is 36241 and with increase the clog
> buffers patch, Tps is 69340 at 128 client count (very good performance
> boost) which indicates that we should go ahead with 1) and 2) patches.
Especially considering the line count... I do wonder about going crazy
and increasing to 256 immediately. It otherwise seems likely that we'll
have the the same issue in a year. Could you perhaps run your test
against that as well?
> I think we should change comments on top of this function.
Yes, definitely.
> 0001-Improve-64bit-atomics-support
>
> +#if 0
> +#ifndef PG_HAVE_ATOMIC_READ_U64
> +#define PG_HAVE_ATOMIC_READ_U64
> +static inline uint64
>
> What the purpose of above #if 0? Other than that patch looks good to me.
I think I was investigating something. Other than that obviously there's
no point. Sorry for that.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Craig Ringer | 2016-03-31 10:29:00 | Re: So, can we stop supporting Windows native now? |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2016-03-31 10:12:17 | Re: Small patch: --disable-setproctitle flag |