Re: [HACKERS] Should we cacheline align PGXACT?

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Ashutosh Sharma
Тема Re: [HACKERS] Should we cacheline align PGXACT?
Дата
Msg-id CAE9k0P=eXVYSoxv=goJo4ds+ttxPion1B28nLaHJh-wK9308vg@mail.gmail.com
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: [HACKERS] Should we cacheline align PGXACT?  (Ashutosh Sharma <ashu.coek88@gmail.com>)
Ответы Re: [HACKERS] Should we cacheline align PGXACT?
Список pgsql-hackers
Дерево обсуждения
Hi,

On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 12:22 PM, Ashutosh Sharma <ashu.coek88@gmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 10:41 AM, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> On 24 February 2017 at 04:41, Ashutosh Sharma <ashu.coek88@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Okay. As suggested by Alexander, I have changed the order of reading and
>> doing initdb for each pgbench run. With these changes, I got following
>> results at 300 scale factor with 8GB of shared buffer.
>
>
> Would you be able to test my patch also please?
>

Sure, I can do that and share the results by early next week. Thanks.

So, Here are the pgbench results I got with 'reduce_pgxact_access_AtEOXact.v2.patch' on a read-write workload.

pgbench settings:
pgbench -i -s 300 postgres
pgbench -M prepared -c $thread -j $thread -T $time_for_reading  postgres

where, time_for_reading = 30mins

non default GUC param
shared_buffers=8GB
max_connections=300

pg_wal is located in SSD.

CLIENT COUNTTPS (HEAD)TPS (PATCH)% IMPROVEMENT
4258826010.5023183926
8509450980.0785237534
1610294103070.1262871576
3219779198150.182011224
6427908283461.569442454
7227823284162.131330194
12828455286180.5728342998
18026739268790.5235797898
19627820279630.5140186916
25628763289690.7161978931


Also, Excel sheet (results-readwrite-300-SF.xlsx) containing the results for all the 3 runs is attached.
Вложения

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: