Re: Speed up Clog Access by increasing CLOG buffers

On 09/07/2016 01:13 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 1:08 AM, Tomas Vondra
> <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>> On 09/06/2016 04:49 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>>> On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 11:34 PM, Tomas Vondra
>>> <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 09/05/2016 06:03 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>>>>> So, in short we have to compare three
>>>>> approaches here.
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) Group mode to reduce CLOGControlLock contention
>>>>> 2) Use granular locking model
>>>>> 3) Use atomic operations
>>>>>
>>>>> For approach-1, you can use patch [1]. For approach-2, you can use
>>>>> 0001-Improve-64bit-atomics-support patch[2] and the patch attached
>>>>> with this mail. For approach-3, you can use
>>>>> 0001-Improve-64bit-atomics-support patch[2] and the patch attached
>>>>> with this mail by commenting USE_CONTENT_LOCK. If the third doesn't
>>>>> work for you then for now we can compare approach-1 and approach-2.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> OK, I can compile all three cases - but onl with gcc 4.7 or newer. Sadly
>>>> the 4-socket 64-core machine runs Debian Jessie with just gcc 4.6 and my
>>>> attempts to update to a newer version were unsuccessful so far.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So which all patches your are able to compile on 4-socket m/c? I
>>> think it is better to measure the performance on bigger machine.
>>
>> Oh, sorry - I forgot to mention that only the last test (with
>> USE_CONTENT_LOCK commented out) fails to compile, because the functions
>> for atomics were added in gcc-4.7.
>>
>
> No issues, in that case we can leave the last test for now and do it later.
>

FWIW I've managed to compile a new GCC on the system (all I had to do
was to actually read the damn manual), so I'm ready to do the test once
I get a bit of time.

regards

--
Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services