Re: [HACKERS] Proposal for CSN based snapshots - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Michael Paquier
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Proposal for CSN based snapshots
Date
Msg-id CAB7nPqQYh6zEeJ9PWMsNvdRC9rj=Q8XKw6Ew1VCLiun1=aUo-Q@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Proposal for CSN based snapshots  (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Proposal for CSN based snapshots
List pgsql-hackers
On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 5:54 PM, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka@iki.fi> wrote:
> And here are the results on the 72 core machine (thanks again, Alexander!).
> The test setup was the same as on the 32-core machine, except that I ran it
> with more clients since the system has more CPU cores. In summary, in the
> best case, the patch increases throughput by about 10%. That peak is with 64
> clients. Interestingly, as the number of clients increases further, the gain
> evaporates, and the CSN version actually performs worse than unpatched
> master. I don't know why that is. One theory that by eliminating one
> bottleneck, we're now hitting another bottleneck which doesn't degrade as
> gracefully when there's contention.
>
> Full results are available at
> https://hlinnaka.iki.fi/temp/csn-4-72core-results/.

There has not been much activity on this thread for some time, and I
mentioned my intentions to some developers at the last PGCon. But I am
planning to study more the work that has been done here, with as
envisaged goal to present a patch for the first CF of PG11. Lots of
fun ahead.
-- 
Michael



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Amit Langote
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Setting pd_lower in GIN metapage
Next
From: Amit Langote
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [BUGS] Beta 10 parser error for CREATE STATISTICS IF NOT EXISTS