Re: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Dilip Kumar
Subject Re: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics
Date
Msg-id CAFiTN-u2=NXi0F2ViYhoUxSs2rr0RSscicuGddq4YesCZ6Ycgg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread
In response to Re: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics  (Alexander Korotkov <a.korotkov@postgrespro.ru>)
Responses Re: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics
Re: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics
List pgsql-hackers

On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 8:09 PM, Alexander Korotkov <a.korotkov@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
Could anybody run benchmarks?  Feature freeze is soon, but it would be *very nice* to fit it into 9.6 release cycle, because it greatly improves scalability on large machines.  Without this patch PostgreSQL 9.6 will be significantly behind competitors like MySQL 5.7.

I have run the performance and here are the results.. With latest patch I did not see any regression at lower client count (median of 3 reading).

scale factor 1000 shared buffer 8GB readonly
Client Base patch
1 12957 13068
2 24931 25816
4 46311 48767
32 300921 310062
64 387623 493843
128 249635 583513
scale factor 300 shared buffer 8GB readonly
Client Base patch
1 14537 14586    --> one thread number looks little less, generally I get ~18000 (will recheck).
2 34703 33929    --> may be run to run variance (once I get time, will recheck)
4 67744 69069
32 312575 336012
64 213312 539056
128 190139 380122

Summary:

Actually with 64 client we have seen ~470,000 TPS with head also, by revering commit 6150a1b0.

I haven't tested this patch by reverting commit 6150a1b0, so not sure can this patch give even better performance ?

It also points to the case, what Andres has mentioned in this thread.


Regards,
Dilip Kumar
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Dilip Kumar
Date:
Subject: Re: Relation extension scalability
Next
From: Dmitry Dolgov
Date:
Subject: Re: [PATH] Jsonb, insert a new value into an array at arbitrary position