On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 6:09 AM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.mshk@gmail.com> wrote:
> This work would be helpful not only for existing workload but also
> future works like some parallel utility commands, which is discussed
> on other threads[1]. At least for parallel vacuum, this feature helps
> to solve issue that the implementation of parallel vacuum has.
>
> I ran pgbench for 10 min three times(scale factor is 5000), here is a
> performance measurement result.
>
> clients TPS(HEAD) TPS(Patched)
> 4 2092.612 2031.277
> 8 3153.732 3046.789
> 16 4562.072 4625.419
> 32 6439.391 6479.526
> 64 7767.364 7779.636
> 100 7917.173 7906.567
>
> * 16 core Xeon E5620 2.4GHz
> * 32 GB RAM
> * ioDrive
>
> In current implementation, it seems there is no performance degradation so far.
>
I think it is good to check pgbench, but we should do tests of the
bulk load as this lock is stressed during such a workload. Some of
the tests we have done when we have improved the performance of bulk
load can be found in an e-mail [1].
[1] -
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAFiTN-tkX6gs-jL8VrPxg6OG9VUAKnObUq7r7pWQqASzdF5OwA%40mail.gmail.com
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
