From: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Speed up Clog Access by increasing CLOG buffers |
Date: | 2016-09-21 03:17:52 |
Message-ID: | CAFiTN-v5hm1EO4cLXYmpppYdNQk+n4N-O1m++3U9f0Ga1gBzRQ@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 9:15 AM, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> +1
>
> My test are under run, I will post it soon..
I have some more results now....
8 socket machine
10 min run(median of 3 run)
synchronous_commit=off
scal factor = 300
share buffer= 8GB
test1: Simple update(pgbench)
Clients Head GroupLock
32 45702 45402
64 46974 51627
128 35056 55362
test2: TPCB (pgbench)
Clients Head GroupLock
32 27969 27765
64 33140 34786
128 21555 38848
Summary:
--------------
At 32 clients no gain, I think at this workload Clog Lock is not a problem.
At 64 Clients we can see ~10% gain with simple update and ~5% with TPCB.
At 128 Clients we can see > 50% gain.
Currently I have tested with synchronous commit=off, later I can try
with on. I can also test at 80 client, I think we will see some
significant gain at this client count also, but as of now I haven't
yet tested.
With above results, what we think ? should we continue our testing ?
--
Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Steve Singer | 2016-09-21 03:35:12 | Re: Logical Replication WIP |
Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2016-09-21 02:28:13 | Re: Fix Error Message for allocate_recordbuf() Failure |