Re: Cache relation sizes? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Thomas Munro
Subject Re: Cache relation sizes?
Date
Msg-id CA+hUKGLLGQeM7gW41nf-b6Wcp9t8=ZCO6oaV-FRG53KDyKjA8w@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Cache relation sizes?  (Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Cache relation sizes?
List pgsql-hackers
On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 10:32 AM Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> wrote:
> Rebased.  I'll add this to the open commitfest.

I traced the recovery process while running pgbench -M prepared -c16
-j16 -t10000 (= 160,000 transactions).  With the patch, the number of
lseeks went from 1,080,661 (6.75 per pgbench transaction) to just 85.

I went ahead and pushed this patch.

There's still the matter of crazy numbers of lseeks in regular
backends; looking at all processes while running the above test, I get
1,469,060 (9.18 per pgbench transaction) without -M prepared, and
193,722 with -M prepared (1.21 per pgbench transaction).  Fixing that
with this approach will require bullet-proof shared invalidation, but
I think it's doable, in later work.



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Dmitry Markman
Date:
Subject: Re: windows config.pl question
Next
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: Ought to use heap_multi_insert() for pg_attribute/depend insertions?