Hi Tsunakawa-san, Peter
On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 7:53 AM, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote:
> From: Peter Eisentraut [mailto:peter.eisentraut@2ndquadrant.com]
> > You posted a link to some performance numbers, but I didn't see the
> > test setup explained there. I'd like to get some more information on
> > this impact of this. Is there an effect with 100 tables, or do you
> need 100000?
>
> Imai-san, can you tell us the test setup?
Maybe I used this test setup[1].
I tested again with those settings for prepared transactions.
I used Tsunakawa-san's patch for locallock[2] (which couldn't be applied to current master so I fixed it) and Amit's
v32patch for speeding up planner[3].
[settings]
plan_cache_mode = 'auto' or 'force_custom_plan'
max_parallel_workers = 0
max_parallel_workers_per_gather = 0
max_locks_per_transaction = 4096
[partitioning table definitions(with 4096 partitions)]
create table rt (a int, b int, c int) partition by range (a);
\o /dev/null
select 'create table rt' || x::text || ' partition of rt for values from (' ||
(x)::text || ') to (' || (x+1)::text || ');' from generate_series(1, 4096) x;
\gexec
\o
[select4096.sql]
\set a random(1, 4096)
select a from rt where a = :a;
[pgbench(with 4096 partitions)]
pgbench -n -f select4096.sql -T 60 -M prepared
[results]
master locallock v32 v32+locallock
------ --------- --- -------------
auto 21.9 22.9 6,834 7,355
custom 19.7 20.0 7,415 7,252
[1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/0F97FA9ABBDBE54F91744A9B37151A51256276%40g01jpexmbkw24
[2] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/0A3221C70F24FB45833433255569204D1FBDFA00%40G01JPEXMBYT05
[3] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/9feacaf6-ddb3-96dd-5b98-df5e927b1439%40lab.ntt.co.jp
--
Yoshikazu Imai
