Re: Speed up Clog Access by increasing CLOG buffers - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Amit Kapila
Subject Re: Speed up Clog Access by increasing CLOG buffers
Date
Msg-id CAA4eK1LGgOyn9OpiK8W3PfrXqfHsvTi0hy0y00bu50YfE_X+MA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Speed up Clog Access by increasing CLOG buffers  (David Steele <david@pgmasters.net>)
Responses Re: Speed up Clog Access by increasing CLOG buffers
Re: Speed up Clog Access by increasing CLOG buffers
Re: Speed up Clog Access by increasing CLOG buffers
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 12:00 AM, David Steele <david@pgmasters.net> wrote:
>
> On 2/26/16 11:37 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 10:03 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com
>>
>>     Here, we can see that there is a gain of ~15% to ~38% at higher
>>     client count.
>>
>>     The attached document (perf_write_clogcontrollock_data_v6.ods)
>>     contains data, mainly focussing on single client performance.  The
>>     data is for multiple runs on different machines, so I thought it is
>>     better to present in form of document rather than dumping everything
>>     in e-mail.  Do let me know if there is any confusion in
>>     understanding/interpreting the data.
>>
>> Forgot to mention that all these tests have been done by
>> reverting commit-ac1d794.
>
>
> This patch no longer applies cleanly:
>
> $ git apply ../other/group_update_clog_v6.patch
> error: patch failed: src/backend/storage/lmgr/proc.c:404
> error: src/backend/storage/lmgr/proc.c: patch does not apply
> error: patch failed: src/include/storage/proc.h:152
> error: src/include/storage/proc.h: patch does not apply
>

For me, with patch -p1 < <path_of_patch> it works, but any how I have updated the patch based on recent commit.  Can you please check the latest patch and see if it applies cleanly for you now.
 
>
> It's not clear to me whether Robert has completed a review of this code or it still needs to be reviewed more comprehensively.
>
> Other than a comment that needs to be fixed it seems that all questions have been answered by Amit.
>

I have updated the comments and changed the name of one of a variable from "all_trans_same_page" to "all_xact_same_page" as pointed out offlist by Alvaro.


With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Amit Langote
Date:
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] VACUUM Progress Checker.
Next
From: Craig Ringer
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Logical decoding support for sequence advances