Re: lseek/read/write overhead becomes visible at scale ..

From: Tobias Oberstein <tobias(dot)oberstein(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: lseek/read/write overhead becomes visible at scale ..
Date: 2017-01-25 21:27:40
Message-ID: a7fc2477-d9d6-c695-b40a-76ad341562c9@gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi,

>> Synthetic PG workload or real world production workload?
>
> Both might work, production-like has bigger pull, but I'd guess
> synthetic is good enough.

Thanks! The box should get PostgreSQL in the not too distant future.
It'll get a backup from prod, but will act as new prod, so it might take
some time until a job can be run and a profile collected.

>> So how would I do a perf profile that would be acceptable as prove?
>
> You'd have to look at cpu time, not number of syscalls. IIRC I
> suggested doing a cycles profile with -g and then using "perf report
> --children" to see how many cycles are spent somewhere below lseek.

Understood. Either profile manually or expand the function.

> I'd also suggest sharing a profile cycles profile, it's quite likely
> that the overhead is completely elsewhere.

Yeah, could be. It'll be interesting to see for sure. I should get a
chance to collect such profile and then I'll post it back here -

/Tobias

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Nikita Glukhov 2017-01-25 21:36:53 Re: PATCH: recursive json_populate_record()
Previous Message Peter Geoghegan 2017-01-25 21:22:41 Re: Checksums by default?