From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Nigel Heron <nheron(at)querymetrics(dot)com> |
Cc: | Atri Sharma <atri(dot)jiit(at)gmail(dot)com>, Mike Blackwell <mike(dot)blackwell(at)rrd(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, PgHacker <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: stats for network traffic WIP |
Date: | 2013-12-10 05:29:29 |
Message-ID: | CAHGQGwF-BSZZfGivnjhBEqvYoHbU4t_Nx=8Yc_WypCwcF91jOA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 6:56 AM, Nigel Heron <nheron(at)querymetrics(dot)com> wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 1:17 PM, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>
>> Could you share the performance numbers? I'm really concerned about
>> the performance overhead caused by this patch.
>>
>
> I've tried pgbench in select mode with small data sets to avoid disk
> io and didn't see any difference. That was on my old core2duo laptop
> though .. I'll have to retry it on some server class multi core
> hardware.
When I ran pgbench -i -s 100 in four parallel, I saw the performance difference
between the master and the patched one. I ran the following commands.
psql -c "checkpoint"
for i in $(seq 1 4); do time pgbench -i -s100 -q db$i & done
The results are:
* Master
10000000 of 10000000 tuples (100%) done (elapsed 13.91 s, remaining 0.00 s).
10000000 of 10000000 tuples (100%) done (elapsed 14.03 s, remaining 0.00 s).
10000000 of 10000000 tuples (100%) done (elapsed 14.01 s, remaining 0.00 s).
10000000 of 10000000 tuples (100%) done (elapsed 14.13 s, remaining 0.00 s).
It took almost 14.0 seconds to store 10000000 tuples.
* Patched
10000000 of 10000000 tuples (100%) done (elapsed 14.90 s, remaining 0.00 s).
10000000 of 10000000 tuples (100%) done (elapsed 15.05 s, remaining 0.00 s).
10000000 of 10000000 tuples (100%) done (elapsed 15.42 s, remaining 0.00 s).
10000000 of 10000000 tuples (100%) done (elapsed 15.70 s, remaining 0.00 s).
It took almost 15.0 seconds to store 10000000 tuples.
Thus, I'm afraid that enabling network statistics would cause serious
performance
degradation. Thought?
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Atri Sharma | 2013-12-10 05:43:48 | Re: stats for network traffic WIP |
Previous Message | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI | 2013-12-10 05:25:09 | Re: Get more from indices. |