From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila(at)huawei(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "'Craig Ringer'" <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | "'Heikki Linnakangas'" <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "'Alvaro Herrera'" <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Performance Improvement by reducing WAL for Update Operation |
Date: | 2013-03-04 04:39:57 |
Message-ID: | 008d01ce1892$53e9dbd0$fbbd9370$@kapila@huawei.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sunday, March 03, 2013 8:19 PM Craig Ringer wrote:
> On 02/05/2013 11:53 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
> >> Performance data for the patch is attached with this mail.
> >> Conclusions from the readings (these are same as my previous patch):
> >>
> >> 1. With orignal pgbench there is a max 7% WAL reduction with not
> much
> >> performance difference.
> >> 2. With 250 record pgbench there is a max wal reduction of 35% with
> not
> >> much performance difference.
> >> 3. With 500 and above record size in pgbench there is an improvement
> in
> >> the performance and wal reduction both.
> >>
> >> If the record size increases there is a gain in performance and wal
> >> size is reduced as well.
> >>
> >> Performance data for synchronous_commit = on is under progress, I
> shall
> >> post it once it is done.
> >> I am expecting it to be same as previous.
> > Please find the performance readings for synchronous_commit = on.
> >
> > Each run is taken for 20 min.
> >
> > Conclusions from the readings with synchronous commit on mode:
> >
> > 1. With orignal pgbench there is a max 2% WAL reduction with not much
> > performance difference.
> > 2. With 500 record pgbench there is a max wal reduction of 3% with
> not much
> > performance difference.
> > 3. With 1800 record size in pgbench there is both an improvement in
> the
> > performance (approx 3%) as well as wal reduction (44%).
> >
> > If the record size increases there is a very good reduction in WAL
> size.
>
> The stats look fairly sane. I'm a little concerned about the apparent
> trend of falling TPS in the patched vs original tests for the 1-client
> test as record size increases, but it's only 0.0%->0.2%->0.4%, and the
> 0.4% case made other config changes too. Nonetheless, it might be wise
> to check with really big records and see if the trend continues.
For bigger size (~2000) records, it goes into toast, for which we don't do
this optimization.
This optimization is mainly for medium size records.
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kohei KaiGai | 2013-03-04 05:02:07 | Re: Partial patch status update, 3/3/13 |
Previous Message | Maciek Sakrejda | 2013-03-04 04:34:31 | Re: [GENERAL] Floating point error |