On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 5:16 PM, Haribabu Kommi
<kommi.haribabu@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 12:06 PM, Haribabu Kommi
> <kommi.haribabu@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 5:36 PM, Haribabu Kommi <kommi.haribabu@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I will do some performance tests and send you the results.
>>
>> Here are the performance results tested on my machine.
>>
>>
>> Head vm patch vm+prefetch patch
>>
>> First vacuum 120sec <1sec <1sec
>> second vacuum 180 sec 180 sec 30 sec
>>
>> I did some modifications in the code to skip the vacuum truncation by
>> the first vacuum command.
>> This way I collected the second vacuum time taken performance.
>>
>> I just combined your vm and prefetch patch into a single patch
>> vm+prefetch patch without a GUC.
>> I kept the prefetch as 32 and did the performance test. I chosen
>> prefetch based on the current
>> buffer access strategy, which is 32 for vacuum presently instead of an
>> user option.
>> Here I attached the modified patch with both vm+prefetch logic.
>>
>> I will do some tests on a machine with SSD and let you know the
>> results. Based on these results,
>> we can decide whether we need a GUC or not? based on the impact of
>> prefetch on ssd machines.
>
> Following are the performance readings on a machine with SSD.
> I increased the pgbench scale factor to 1000 in the test instead of 500
> to show a better performance numbers.
>
> Head vm patch vm+prefetch patch
>
> First vacuum 6.24 sec 2.91 sec 2.91 sec
> second vacuum 6.66 sec 6.66 sec 7.19 sec
>
> There is a small performance impact on SSD with prefetch.
The above prefetch overhead is observed with prefeching of 1639345 pages.
I feel this overhead is small.
Hi Jeff,
If you are fine with earlier attached patch, then I will mark this patch as
ready for committer, to get some committer view on the patch.
Regards,
Hari Babu
Fujitsu Australia
