Re: Performance comparison between Pgsql 10.5 and Pgsql 11.2 - Mailing list pgsql-general

From Thomas Munro
Subject Re: Performance comparison between Pgsql 10.5 and Pgsql 11.2
Date
Msg-id CA+hUKGKvr1L3VoSATpprFFsmAmCQDT5OUcranEjT99-k54vV4A@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Performance comparison between Pgsql 10.5 and Pgsql 11.2  (Nicola Contu <nicola.contu@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Performance comparison between Pgsql 10.5 and Pgsql 11.2
List pgsql-general
On Thu, Mar 7, 2019 at 12:12 AM Nicola Contu <nicola.contu@gmail.com> wrote:
> This is instead the strace of another server running the same version compiled  but that is even slower.

Huh.  That's a lot of lseek().  Some of these will be for random
reads/writes and will go way in v12, and some will be for probing the
size of relations while planning, and some while executing scans.  I
bet you could make some of them go away by using prepared statements.
Does the query in your test involve many partitions/tables?

% time     seconds  usecs/call     calls    errors syscall
------ ----------- ----------- --------- --------- ----------------
 32.50  143.010306           7  21044095           lseek
 26.21  115.354045          14   8144577           read
  6.18   27.185578          16   1669889        10 sendto
  5.29   23.300584          57    407528           fdatasync
  4.93   21.709522           9   2313529    824174 recvfrom
  3.31   14.547568          19    765897           write
  2.73   12.007486          14    867088     14494 epoll_wait
  2.18    9.597460          15    659871     84097 futex
  1.85    8.147759          14    567414           close
  1.77    7.767832          18    437656     11319 open

The other results had 1 usec lseek(), and much fewer of them relative
to the number of reads and writes.  BTW, are you comparing v10 and v11
on the same hardware, kernel, filesystem?  Just wondering if there
could be some change in syscall overhead on different kernel patch
levels or something like that: we see 7 usec vs 1 usec in those two
files (though I have no idea how reliable these times are) and if
we're going to call it 21 million times at some point it might
matter...

-- 
Thomas Munro
https://enterprisedb.com


pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Thomas Munro
Date:
Subject: Re: Performance comparison between Pgsql 10.5 and Pgsql 11.2
Next
From: Perumal Raj
Date:
Subject: Re: Question about pg_upgrade from 9.2 to X.X