From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Speed up Clog Access by increasing CLOG buffers |
Date: | 2016-03-31 12:22:12 |
Message-ID: | CAA4eK1LDeD2xJvitmX4mnx4ap9uaTAoJVUHBT0Wa3xhc6mP3Pw@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 3:48 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
>
> 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?
>
Unfortunately, it dipped to 65005 with 256 clog bufs. So I think 128 is
appropriate number.
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andres Freund | 2016-03-31 12:22:30 | Re: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics |
Previous Message | Magnus Hagander | 2016-03-31 12:21:28 | Re: Updated backup APIs for non-exclusive backups |