Re: POC: Cache data in GetSnapshotData()
От | Mithun Cy |
---|---|
Тема | Re: POC: Cache data in GetSnapshotData() |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAD__Ouh6PahJ+q1mzzjDzLo4v9GjyufegtJNAyXc0_Lfh-4coQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: POC: Cache data in GetSnapshotData() (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: POC: Cache data in GetSnapshotData()
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 9:00 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>If you see, for the Base readings, there is a performance increase up till 64 clients and then there is a fall at 88 clients, which to me >indicates that it hits very high-contention around CLogControlLock at 88 clients which CLog patch is able to control to a great degree (if >required, I think the same can be verified by LWLock stats data). One reason for hitting contention at 88 clients is that this machine >seems to have 64-cores (it has 8 sockets and 8 Core(s) per socket) as per below information of lscpu command.
I am attaching LWLock stats data for above test setups(unlogged tables).
BASE | At 64 clients Block-time unit | At 88 clients Block-time unit |
ProcArrayLock | 182946 | 117827 |
ClogControlLock | 107420 | 120266 |
clog patch | ||
ProcArrayLock | 183663 | 121215 |
ClogControlLock | 72806 | 65220 |
clog patch + save snapshot | ||
ProcArrayLock | 128260 | 83356 |
ClogControlLock | 78921 | 74011 |
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: