Re: Relation extension scalability

From: Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Petr Jelinek <petr(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)bluetreble(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Relation extension scalability
Date: 2016-03-28 12:46:08
Message-ID: CAFiTN-tkYR3S_DdF2U9gQbNi7zUEJdQtgcOVHadBcTeVS+d9_w@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 3:02 PM, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> 1. Relation Size : No change in size, its same as base and v13
>
> 2. INSERT 1028 Byte 1000 tuple performance
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> Client base v13 v15
> 1 117 124 122
> 2 111 126 123
> 4 51 128 125
> 8 43 149 135
> 16 40 217 147
> 32 35 263 141
>
> 3. COPY 10000 Tuple performance.
> ----------------------------------------------
> Client base v13 v15
> 1 118 147 155
> 2 217 276 273
> 4 210 421 457
> 8 166 630 643
> 16 145 813 595
> 32 124 985 598
>
> Conclusion:
> ---------------
> 1. I think v15 is solving the problem exist with v13 and performance is
> significantly high compared to base, and relation size is also stable, So
> IMHO V15 is winner over other solution, what other thinks ?
>
> 2. And no point in thinking that V13 is better than V15 because, V13 has
> bug of sometime extending more than expected pages and that is uncontrolled
> and same can be the reason also of v13 performing better.
>

Found one problem with V15, so sending the new version.
In V15 I am taking prev_blkno as targetBlock instead it should be the last
block of the relation at that time. Attaching new patch.

--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

Attachment Content-Type Size
multi_extend_v16.patch application/octet-stream 12.6 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alexander Korotkov 2016-03-28 12:46:43 Re: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics
Previous Message Piotr Stefaniak 2016-03-28 11:48:12 Re: Two division by 0 errors in optimizer/plan/planner.c and optimizer/path/costsize.c