On 2017-06-20 17:51:23 +0200, Daniel Verite wrote:
> Andres Freund wrote:
>
> > FWIW, I still think this needs a pgbench or similar example integration,
> > so we can actually properly measure the benefits.
>
> Here's an updated version of the patch I made during review,
> adding \beginbatch and \endbatch to pgbench.
> The performance improvement appears clearly
> with a custom script of this kind:
> \beginbatch
> UPDATE pgbench_branches SET bbalance = bbalance + 1 WHERE bid = 0;
> ..above repeated 1000 times...
> \endbatch
>
> versus the same with a BEGIN; END; pair instead of \beginbatch \endbatch
>
> On localhost on my desktop I tend to see a 30% difference in favor
> of the batch mode with that kind of test.
> On slower networks there are much bigger differences.
This is seriously impressive. Just using the normal pgbench mixed
workload, wrapping a whole transaction into a batch *doubles* the
throughput. And that's locally over a unix socket - the gain over
actual network will be larger.
\set nbranches 1 * :scale
\set ntellers 10 * :scale
\set naccounts 100000 * :scale
\set aid random(1, :naccounts)
\set bid random(1, :nbranches)
\set tid random(1, :ntellers)
\set delta random(-5000, 5000)
\beginbatch
BEGIN;
UPDATE pgbench_accounts SET abalance = abalance + :delta WHERE aid = :aid;
SELECT abalance FROM pgbench_accounts WHERE aid = :aid;
UPDATE pgbench_tellers SET tbalance = tbalance + :delta WHERE tid = :tid;
UPDATE pgbench_branches SET bbalance = bbalance + :delta WHERE bid = :bid;
INSERT INTO pgbench_history (tid, bid, aid, delta, mtime) VALUES (:tid, :bid, :aid, :delta, CURRENT_TIMESTAMP);
END;
\endbatch
- Andres