From: | Jesper Pedersen <jesper(dot)pedersen(at)redhat(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Stas Kelvich <s(dot)kelvich(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Speedup twophase transactions |
Date: | 2016-01-12 14:48:05 |
Message-ID: | 56951225.6020705@redhat.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 01/11/2016 06:11 PM, Stas Kelvich wrote:
>> On 11 Jan 2016, at 21:40, Jesper Pedersen <jesper(dot)pedersen(at)redhat(dot)com> wrote:
>> I have done a run with the patch and it looks really great.
>>
>> Attached is the TPS graph - with a 1pc run too - and the perf profile as a flame graph (28C/56T w/ 256Gb mem, 2 x RAID10 SSD).
>>
>
> Thanks for testing and especially for the flame graph. That is somewhat in between the cases that I have tested. On commodity server with dual Xeon (6C each) 2pc speed is about 80% of 1pc speed, but on 60C/120T system that patch didn’t make significant difference because main bottleneck changes from file access to locks on array of running global transactions.
>
> How did you generated names for your PREPARE’s? One funny thing that I’ve spotted that tx rate increased when i was using incrementing counter as GID instead of random string.
>
I'm using https://github.com/jesperpedersen/postgres/tree/pgbench_xa -
so just the client_id.
The strcmp() in MarkAsPreparing() is under the exclusive lock, so maybe
that is what you are seeing, as shorter gid's are faster.
> And can you also share flame graph for 1pc workload?
>
Attached with a new 2pc, as the server runs Linux 4.4.0 now, both using
-F 497 over a 6 min run.
Best regards,
Jesper
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
1pc.svg.gz | application/gzip | 145.6 KB |
2pc.svg.gz | application/gzip | 164.3 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Masahiko Sawada | 2016-01-12 15:16:59 | Re: Freeze avoidance of very large table. |
Previous Message | Albe Laurenz | 2016-01-12 14:08:14 | Re: Fwd: [JDBC] Re: 9.4-1207 behaves differently with server side prepared statements compared to 9.2-1102 |