Re: Misaligned BufferDescriptors causing major performance problems on AMD

From: Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Greg Stark <stark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Misaligned BufferDescriptors causing major performance problems on AMD
Date: 2014-12-29 23:48:21
Message-ID: 20141229234821.GB27028@alap3.anarazel.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 2014-12-29 16:59:05 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> I am glad someone else considers this important.

I do consider it important. I just considered the lwlock scalability
more important...

> Andres reported the above 2x pgbench difference in February, but no
> action was taken as everyone felt there needed to be more performance
> testing, but it never happened:

FWIW, I have no idea what exactly should be tested there. Right now I
think what we should do is to remove the BUFFERALIGN from shmem.c and
instead add explicit alignment code in a couple callers
(BufferDescriptors/Blocks, proc.c stuff).

> $ pgbench --initialize --scale 1 pgbench

Scale 1 isn't particularly helpful in benchmarks, not even read only
ones.

> $ pgbench --protocol prepared --client 16 --jobs 16 --transactions 100000 --select-only pgbench

I'd suspect you're more likely to see differences with a higher client
count. Also, I seriously doubt 100k xacts is enough to get stable
results - even on my laptop I get 100k+ TPS. I'd suggest using something
like -P 1 -T 100 or so.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Adam Brightwell 2014-12-30 00:16:29 Re: CATUPDATE confusion?
Previous Message Peter Geoghegan 2014-12-29 23:10:44 Re: INSERT ... ON CONFLICT {UPDATE | IGNORE}