Re: Scaling XLog insertion (was Re: Moving more work outside WALInsertLock)

From: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
To: Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Scaling XLog insertion (was Re: Moving more work outside WALInsertLock)
Date: 2012-03-09 10:45:05
Message-ID: 4F59DF31.8000701@enterprisedb.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 09.03.2012 12:34, Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 7:04 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
> <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
>> Here's an updated patch. It now only loops once per segment that a record
>> crosses. Plus a lot of other small cleanup.
>
> Thanks! But you forgot to attach the patch.

Sorry, here you go.

>> I've been doing some performance testing with this, using a simple C
>> function that just inserts a dummy WAL record of given size. I'm not totally
>> satisfied. Although the patch helps with scalability at 3-4 concurrent
>> backends doing WAL insertions, it seems to slow down the single-client case
>> with small WAL records by about 5-10%. This is what Robert also saw with an
>> earlier version of the patch
>> (http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2011-12/msg01223.php). I
>> tested this with the data directory on a RAM drive, unfortunately I don't
>> have a server with a hard drive that can sustain the high insertion rate.
>> I'll post more detailed results, once I've refined the tests a bit.
>
> I'm also doing performance test. If I get interesting result, I'll post it.

Thanks!

BTW, I haven't forgotten about the recovery bugs Jeff found earlier. I'm
planning to do a longer run with his test script - I only run it for
about 1000 iterations - to see if I can reproduce the PANIC with both
the earlier patch version he tested, and this new one.

--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

Attachment Content-Type Size
xloginsert-scale-12.patch text/x-diff 96.0 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Marco Nenciarini 2012-03-09 11:24:33 Re: [PATCH] Support for foreign keys with arrays
Previous Message Dimitri Fontaine 2012-03-09 10:43:59 Re: Review of patch renaming constraints