| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: heads up: Fix for intel hardware bug will lead to performance regressions |
| Date: | 2018-01-04 17:28:31 |
| Message-ID: | CA+Tgmobs0YsYKPbhf_9DcrbO2xtso4A18jO+p=_hTw8x8abFLQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Jan 2, 2018 at 5:23 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> To get closer to the worst case, I've also measured:
>
> pgbench SELECT 1, 16 clients, i7-6820HQ CPU (skylake):
>
> pti=off:
> tps = 420490.162391
>
> pti=on:
> tps = 350746.065039 (~0.83x)
>
> pti=on, nopcid:
> tps = 324269.903152 (~0.77x)
>
>
> Note that real-world scenarios probably will see somewhat smaller
> impact, as this was measured over a loopback unix sockets which'll have
> smaller overhead itself than proper TCP sockets + actual network.
What about scenarios with longer-running queries?
Is it feasible to think about reducing the number of system calls we
issue in cases that weren't previously worth optimizing?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2018-01-04 17:29:58 | Re: [HACKERS] MERGE SQL Statement for PG11 |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2018-01-04 17:11:37 | Re: pgsql: Add parallel-aware hash joins. |