Re: [HACKERS] POC: Cache data in GetSnapshotData()
От | Jesper Pedersen |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [HACKERS] POC: Cache data in GetSnapshotData() |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 79f9ad79-943e-6b83-6259-3ac2ae4e6a92@redhat.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] POC: Cache data in GetSnapshotData() (Mithun Cy <mithun.cy@enterprisedb.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] POC: Cache data in GetSnapshotData()
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Hi, On 08/29/2017 05:04 AM, Mithun Cy wrote: > Test Setting: > ========= > Server configuration: > ./postgres -c shared_buffers=8GB -N 300 -c min_wal_size=15GB -c > max_wal_size=20GB -c checkpoint_timeout=900 -c > maintenance_work_mem=1GB -c checkpoint_completion_target=0.9 -c > wal_buffers=256MB & > > pgbench configuration: > scale_factor = 300 > ./pgbench -c $threads -j $threads -T $time_for_reading -M prepared -S postgres > > The machine has 64 cores with this patch I can see server starts > improvement after 64 clients. I have tested up to 256 clients. Which > shows performance improvement nearly max 39% [1]. This is the best > case for the patch where once computed snapshotData is reused further. > > The worst case seems to be small, quick write transactions which > frequently invalidate the cached SnapshotData before it is reused by > any next GetSnapshotData call. As of now, I tested simple update > tests: pgbench -M Prepared -N on the same machine with the above > server configuration. I do not see much change in TPS numbers. > > All TPS are median of 3 runs > Clients TPS-With Patch 05 TPS-Base %Diff > 1 752.461117 755.186777 -0.3% > 64 32171.296537 31202.153576 +3.1% > 128 41059.660769 40061.929658 +2.49% > > I will do some profiling and find out why this case is not costing us > some performance due to caching overhead. > I have done a run with this patch on a 2S/28C/56T/256Gb w/ 2 x RAID10 SSD machine. Both for -M prepared, and -M prepared -S I'm not seeing any improvements (1 to 375 clients); e.g. +-1%. Although the -M prepared -S case should improve, I'm not sure that the extra overhead in the -M prepared case is worth the added code complexity. Best regards, Jesper -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: