Re: XLogInsert scaling, revisited - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: XLogInsert scaling, revisited
Date
Msg-id 18237.1348155462@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to XLogInsert scaling, revisited  (Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas@vmware.com>)
Responses Re: XLogInsert scaling, revisited  (Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>)
Re: XLogInsert scaling, revisited  (Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas@vmware.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnakangas@vmware.com> writes:
> I've been slowly continuing to work that I started last winder to make 
> XLogInsert scale better. I have tried quite a few different approaches 
> since then, and have settled on the attached. This is similar but not 
> exactly the same as what I did in the patches I posted earlier.

This sounds pretty good.  I'm a bit bothered by the fact that you've
settled on 7 parallel-insertion slots after testing on an 8-core
machine.  I suspect that it's not a coincidence that you're seeing
a sweet spot for #slots ~= #CPUs.  If that is what's happening, we're
going to want to be able to configure the #slots at postmaster start.
Not sure how we'd go about it exactly - is there any reasonably portable
way to find out how many CPUs the machine has?  Or do we have to use a
GUC for that?
        regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Heikki Linnakangas
Date:
Subject: XLogInsert scaling, revisited
Next
From: Merlin Moncure
Date:
Subject: Re: Invalid optimization of VOLATILE function in WHERE clause?