Re: Performance Improvement by reducing WAL for Update Operation

From: Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila(at)huawei(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: 2013-03-03 14:48:59
Message-ID: 513362DB.1010300@2ndquadrant.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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.

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Craig Ringer 2013-03-03 14:53:15 Re: WIP: store additional info in GIN index
Previous Message Craig Ringer 2013-03-03 14:37:59 Re: SP-GiST for ranges based on 2d-mapping and quad-tree