Re: pgbench vs. wait events
От | Jeff Janes |
---|---|
Тема | Re: pgbench vs. wait events |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAMkU=1yVzuJA7sTW-3Ddyn9QYqAbAYG61OWwsfP-WU8f6KUGvg@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | pgbench vs. wait events (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: pgbench vs. wait events
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 11:38 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
I decided to do some testing on hydra (IBM-provided community
resource, POWER, 16 cores/64 threads, kernel 3.2.6-3.fc16.ppc64) using
the newly-enhanced wait event stuff to try to get an idea of what
we're waiting for during pgbench. I did 30-minute pgbench runs with
various configurations, but all had max_connections = 200,
shared_buffers = 8GB, maintenance_work_mem = 4GB, synchronous_commit =
off, checkpoint_timeout = 15min, checkpoint_completion_target = 0.9,
log_line_prefix = '%t [%p] ', max_wal_size = 40GB, log_checkpoints =
on. During each run, I ran this psql script in another window and
captured the output:
\t
select wait_event_type, wait_event from pg_stat_activity where pid !=
pg_backend_pid()
\watch 0.5
Then, I used a little shell-scripting to count up the number of times
each wait event occurred in the output. First, I tried scale factor
3000 with 32 clients and got these results:
Scale factor 3000 obviously doesn't fit in shared_buffers. But does it fit in RAM? That is, are the backends doing real IO, or they just doing fake IO to the kernel's fs cache?
Cheers,
Jeff
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: