RE: [Patch] Optimize dropping of relation buffers using dlist - Mailing list pgsql-hackers
| From | Tang, Haiying |
|---|---|
| Subject | RE: [Patch] Optimize dropping of relation buffers using dlist |
| Date | |
| Msg-id | 87b6d367a3d34322aedd9eae5d612a96@G08CNEXMBPEKD05.g08.fujitsu.local Whole thread Raw |
| In response to | RE: [Patch] Optimize dropping of relation buffers using dlist ("Tang, Haiying" <tanghy.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>) |
| List | pgsql-hackers |
>I'd like take a look at them and redo some of the tests using my machine. I'll send my test reults in a separate email afterthis. I did the same tests with Kirk's scripts using the latest patch on my own machine. The results look pretty good and similarwith Kirk's. average of 5 runs. [VACUUM failover test for 1000 relations] Unit is second, %reg=(patched-master)/ master | s_b | Master | Patched | %reg | |--------------|---------------|--------------|--------------| | 128 MB | 0.408 | 0.308 | -24.44% | | 1 GB | 0.809 | 0.308 | -61.94% | | 20 GB | 12.529 | 0.308 | -97.54% | | 100 GB | 59.310 | 0.369 | -99.38% | [TRUNCATE failover test for 1000 relations] Unit is second, %reg=(patched-master)/ master | s_b | Master | Patched | %reg | |--------------|---------------|--------------|--------------| | 128 MB | 0.287 | 0.207 | -27.91% | | 1 GB | 0.688 | 0.208 | -69.84% | | 20 GB | 12.449 | 0.208 | -98.33% | | 100 GB | 61.800 | 0.207 | -99.66% | Besides, I did the test for threshold value again. (I rechecked my test process and found out that I forgot to check thedata synchronization state on standby which may introduce some NOISE to my results.) The following results show we can't get optimize over NBuffers/32 just like Kirk's test results, so I do approve with Kirkon the threshold value. %regression: | rel_size |128MB|1GB|20GB| 100GB | |----------|----|----|----|-------| | NB/512 | 0% | 0% | 0% | -48% | | NB/256 | 0% | 0% | 0% | -33% | | NB/128 | 0% | 0% | 0% | -9% | | NB/64 | 0% | 0% | 0% | -5% | | NB/32 | 0% | 0% |-4% | -3% | | NB/16 | 0% | 0% |-4% | 1% | | NB/8 | 1% | 0% | 1% | 3% | Optimization details(unit: second): patched: shared_buffers NBuffers/512 NBuffers/256 NBuffers/128 NBuffers/64 NBuffers/32 NBuffers/16 NBuffers/8 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 128M 0.107 0.107 0.107 0.106 0.107 0.107 0.107 1G 0.107 0.107 0.107 0.107 0.107 0.107 0.107 20G 0.107 0.108 0.207 0.307 0.442 0.876 1.577 100G 0.208 0.308 0.559 1.060 1.961 4.567 7.922 master: shared_buffers NBuffers/512 NBuffers/256 NBuffers/128 NBuffers/64 NBuffers/32 NBuffers/16 NBuffers/8 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 128M 0.107 0.107 0.107 0.107 0.107 0.107 0.106 1G 0.107 0.107 0.107 0.107 0.107 0.107 0.107 20G 0.107 0.107 0.208 0.308 0.457 0.910 1.560 100G 0.308 0.409 0.608 1.110 2.011 4.516 7.721 [Specs] CPU : 40 processors (Intel(R) Xeon(R) Silver 4210 CPU @ 2.20GHz) Memory: 128G OS: CentOS 8 Any question to my test is welcome. Regards, Tang
pgsql-hackers by date: