Re: Any better plan for this query?.. - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Dimitri
Subject Re: Any better plan for this query?..
Date
Msg-id 5482c80a0905141125j761283c1qa1d762906e8ddbfe@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Any better plan for this query?..  (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>)
Responses Re: Any better plan for this query?..  (Simon Riggs <simon@2ndQuadrant.com>)
List pgsql-performance
Folks, sorry, I'm outpassed little bit by the events :-))

I've finished tests with PREPARE/EXECUTE - it's much faster of course,
and the max TSP is 15.000 now on 24 cores!  - I've done various tests
to see where is the limit bottleneck may be present - it's more likely
something timer or interrupt based, etc. Nothing special via DTrace,
or probably it'll say you more things then me, but for a 10sec period
it's quite small wait time:

# lwlock_wait_8.4.d `pgrep -n postgres`

               Lock Id            Mode           Count
 FirstBufMappingLock       Exclusive               1
      FirstLockMgrLock       Exclusive               1
       BufFreelistLock       Exclusive               3
 FirstBufMappingLock          Shared               4
      FirstLockMgrLock          Shared               4

               Lock Id            Mode   Combined Time (ns)
      FirstLockMgrLock       Exclusive                 803700
       BufFreelistLock       Exclusive                 3001600
      FirstLockMgrLock          Shared               4586600
 FirstBufMappingLock       Exclusive              6283900
 FirstBufMappingLock          Shared             21792900

On the same time those lock waits are appearing only on 24 or 32 cores.
I'll plan to replay this case on the bigger server (64 cores or more)
- it'll be much more evident if the problem is in locks.

Currently I'm finishing my report with all data all of you asked
(system graphs, pgsql, and other). I'll publish it on my web site and
send you a link.

Rgds,
-Dimitri

On 5/14/09, Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2009-05-12 at 14:28 +0200, Dimitri wrote:
>
>> As problem I'm considering a scalability issue on Read-Only workload -
>> only selects, no disk access, and if on move from 8 to 16 cores we
>> gain near 100%, on move from 16 to 32 cores it's only 10%...
>
> Dimitri,
>
> Will you be re-running the Read-Only tests?
>
> Can you run the Dtrace script to assess LWlock contention during the
> run?
>
> Would you re-run the tests with a patch?
>
> Thanks,
>
> --
>  Simon Riggs           www.2ndQuadrant.com
>  PostgreSQL Training, Services and Support
>
>

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Scott Carey
Date:
Subject: Re: AMD Shanghai versus Intel Nehalem
Next
From: Dimitri
Date:
Subject: Re: Any better plan for this query?..