| From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
| Cc: | David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Thom Brown <thom(at)linux(dot)com>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Jesper Pedersen <jesper(dot)pedersen(at)redhat(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Speed up Clog Access by increasing CLOG buffers |
| Date: | 2016-03-23 07:03:22 |
| Message-ID: | CAA4eK1LqO6wzAZ3ik7Pej__DFTgA-0GTQcXiFwnNRtQ+LmBttA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 12:26 PM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 4:22 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I think it's worthwhile to create a benchmark that does something like
> > BEGIN;SELECT ... FOR UPDATE; SELECT pg_sleep(random_time);
> > INSERT;COMMIT; you'd find that if random is a bit larger (say 20-200ms,
> > completely realistic values for network RTT + application computation),
> > the success rate of group updates shrinks noticeably.
> >
>
> Will do some tests based on above test and share results.
>
Forgot to mention that the effect of patch is better visible with unlogged
tables, so will do the test with those and request you to use same if you
yourself is also planning to perform some tests.
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2016-03-23 07:17:14 | Re: VS 2015 support in src/tools/msvc |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2016-03-23 06:56:35 | Re: Speed up Clog Access by increasing CLOG buffers |