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

From Dilip Kumar
Subject Re: Speed up Clog Access by increasing CLOG buffers
Date
Msg-id CAFiTN-uFQJDNATkMt7=bJUSOPD+t7sGvTkYjX_3CChMiE0224g@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Speed up Clog Access by increasing CLOG buffers  (Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 5:14 PM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Thanks Tomas and Dilip for doing detailed performance tests for this
>>> patch.  I would like to summarise the performance testing results.
>>>
>>> 1. With update intensive workload, we are seeing gains from 23%~192%
>>> at client count >=64 with group_update patch [1].

this is with unlogged table

>>> 2. With tpc-b pgbench workload (at 1000 scale factor), we are seeing
>>> gains from 12% to ~70% at client count >=64 [2].  Tests are done on
>>> 8-socket intel   m/c.

this is with synchronous_commit=off

>>> 3. With pgbench workload (both simple-update and tpc-b at 300 scale
>>> factor), we are seeing gain 10% to > 50% at client count >=64 [3].
>>> Tests are done on 8-socket intel m/c.

this is with synchronous_commit=off

>>> 4. To see why the patch only helps at higher client count, we have
>>> done wait event testing for various workloads [4], [5] and the results
>>> indicate that at lower clients, the waits are mostly due to
>>> transactionid or clientread.  At client-counts where contention due to
>>> CLOGControlLock is significant, this patch helps a lot to reduce that
>>> contention.  These tests are done on on 8-socket intel m/c and
>>> 4-socket power m/c

these both are with synchronous_commit=off + unlogged table

>>> 5. With pgbench workload (unlogged tables), we are seeing gains from
>>> 15% to > 300% at client count >=72 [6].
>>>
>>
>> It's not entirely clear which of the above tests were done on unlogged
>> tables, and I don't see that in the referenced e-mails. That would be an
>> interesting thing to mention in the summary, I think.
>>
>
> One thing is clear that all results are on either
> synchronous_commit=off or on unlogged tables.  I think Dilip can
> answer better which of those are on unlogged and which on
> synchronous_commit=off.

I have mentioned this above under each of your test point..

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



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Karl O. Pinc"
Date:
Subject: Re: Patch to implement pg_current_logfile() function
Next
From: Kyotaro HORIGUCHI
Date:
Subject: Re: Radix tree for character conversion