From: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Speed up Clog Access by increasing CLOG buffers |
Date: | 2016-09-06 19:38:35 |
Message-ID: | 800c71e5-13a6-887b-250d-0ab8706533e3@2ndquadrant.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
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.
regards
--
Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2016-09-06 19:39:39 | Re: Parallel tuplesort (for parallel B-Tree index creation) |
Previous Message | Peter Geoghegan | 2016-09-06 19:26:54 | Re: Tuplesort merge pre-reading |