From: | "Ryohei Takahashi (Fujitsu)" <r(dot)takahashi_2(at)fujitsu(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | 'Thomas Munro' <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | RE: COPY performance on Windows |
Date: | 2024-12-16 12:09:03 |
Message-ID: | TY3PR01MB1189186455D964F8359044600823B2@TY3PR01MB11891.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
Thank you for your reply.
I tried your patch and report in this e-mail.
> 1. Those code paths finish up in pg_pwritev(), but it has a loop over
> 8kb writes on Windows. Does it help if we just make "zbuffer" bigger?
> How big?
This patch improves the performance.
I applied 0001-Use-bigger-writes-in-pg_pwrite_zeros-on-Windows.patch over REL_16_6.
I changed the value "zbuffer" from 2 to 32.
I measured with nclients = 1.
16.6: 453s
16.6 + patch (zbuffer = 2): 442s
16.6 + patch (zbuffer = 4): 434s
16.6 + patch (zbuffer = 8): 430s
16.6 + patch (zbuffer = 16): 429s
16.6 + patch (zbuffer = 32): 428s
Performance improved up to 8KB and remained stable after that.
> 2. While pondering the goals of posix_fallocate(), I had a
> realisation about how we might implement FileFallocate() on Windows.
> Does this idea work? Well?
This patch degrades the performance.
16.6: 453s
16.6 + patch: 479s
Regards,
Ryohei Takahashi
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Ryohei Takahashi (Fujitsu) | 2024-12-16 12:10:03 | RE: COPY performance on Windows |
Previous Message | Junwang Zhao | 2024-12-16 12:00:30 | Re: SQL Property Graph Queries (SQL/PGQ) |