From: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Ranier Vilela <ranier(dot)vf(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Improving connection scalability (src/backend/storage/ipc/procarray.c) |
Date: | 2022-05-27 01:30:46 |
Message-ID: | b292f0ea-0d7c-0129-4149-b7940e227721@enterprisedb.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 5/27/22 02:11, Ranier Vilela wrote:
>
> ...
>
> Here the results with -T 60:
Might be a good idea to share your analysis / interpretation of the
results, not just the raw data. After all, the change is being proposed
by you, so do you think this shows the change is beneficial?
> Linux Ubuntu 64 bits
> shared_buffers = 128MB
>
> ./pgbench -M prepared -c $conns -j $conns -T 60 -S -n -U postgres
>
> pgbench (15beta1)
> transaction type: <builtin: select only>
> scaling factor: 1
> query mode: prepared
> number of clients: 100
> number of threads: 100
> maximum number of tries: 1
> duration: 60 s
>
> conns tps head tps patched
>
> 1 17126.326108 17792.414234
> 10 82068.123383 82468.334836
> 50 73808.731404 74678.839428
> 80 73290.191713 73116.553986
> 90 67558.483043 68384.906949
> 100 65960.982801 66997.793777
> 200 62216.011998 62870.243385
> 300 62924.225658 62796.157548
> 400 62278.099704 63129.555135
> 500 63257.930870 62188.825044
> 600 61479.890611 61517.913967
> 700 61139.354053 61327.898847
> 800 60833.663791 61517.913967
> 900 61305.129642 61248.336593
> 1000 60990.918719 61041.670996
>
These results look much saner, but IMHO it also does not show any clear
benefit of the patch. Or are you still claiming there is a benefit?
BTW it's generally a good idea to do multiple runs and then use the
average and/or median. Results from a single may be quite noisy.
>
> Linux Ubuntu 64 bits
> shared_buffers = 2048MB
>
> ./pgbench -M prepared -c $conns -j $conns -S -n -U postgres
>
> pgbench (15beta1)
> transaction type: <builtin: select only>
> scaling factor: 1
> query mode: prepared
> number of clients: 100
> number of threads: 100
> maximum number of tries: 1
> number of transactions per client: 10
>
> conns tps head tps patched
>
> 1 2918.004085 3211.303789
> 10 12262.415696 15540.015540
> 50 13656.724571 16701.182444
> 80 14338.202348 16628.559551
> 90 16597.510373 16835.016835
> 100 17706.775793 16607.433487
> 200 16877.067441 16426.969799
> 300 16942.260775 16319.780662
> 400 16794.514911 16155.023607
> 500 16598.502151 16051.106724
> 600 16717.935001 16007.171213
> 700 16651.204834 16004.353184
> 800 16467.546583 16834.591719
> 900 16588.241149 16693.902459
> 1000 16564.985265 16936.952195
>
I think we've agreed these results are useless.
>
> Linux Ubuntu 64 bits
> shared_buffers = 2048MB
>
> ./pgbench -M prepared -c $conns -j $conns -T 60 -S -n -U postgres
>
> pgbench (15beta1)
> transaction type: <builtin: select only>
> scaling factor: 1
> query mode: prepared
> number of clients: 100
> number of threads: 100
> maximum number of tries: 1
> duration: 60 s
>
> conns tps head tps patched
>
> 1 17174.265804 17792.414234
> 10 82365.634750 82468.334836
> 50 74593.714180 74678.839428
> 80 69219.756038 73116.553986
> 90 67419.574189 68384.906949
> 100 66613.771701 66997.793777
> 200 61739.784830 62870.243385
> 300 62109.691298 62796.157548
> 400 61630.822446 63129.555135
> 500 61711.019964 62755.190389
> 600 60620.010181 61517.913967
> 700 60303.317736 61688.044232
> 800 60451.113573 61076.666572
> 900 60017.327157 61256.290037
> 1000 60088.823434 60986.799312
>
I have no idea why shared buffers 2GB would be interesting. The proposed
change was related to procarray, not shared buffers. And scale 1 is
~15MB of data, so it fits into 128MB just fine.
Also, the first ~10 results for "patched" case match results for 128MB
shared buffers. That seems very unlikely to happen by chance, so this
seems rather suspicious.
regards
--
Tomas Vondra
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Imseih (AWS), Sami | 2022-05-27 01:52:10 | Re: Add index scan progress to pg_stat_progress_vacuum |
Previous Message | Gurjeet Singh | 2022-05-27 00:44:54 | Re: Patch: Don't set LoadedSSL unless secure_initialize succeeds |