Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Select query performance and shared buffers - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Metin Doslu
Subject Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Select query performance and shared buffers
Date
Msg-id CAL1dPce25L_X2a_QebJyC4rHhmYVaR8xQBud0y799opY9JKqpw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Select query performance and shared buffers  (Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] Parallel Select query performance and shared buffers  (Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-performance
> You could try my lwlock-scalability improvement patches - for some
> workloads here, the improvements have been rather noticeable. Which
> version are you testing?

I tried your patches on next link. As you suspect I didn't see any improvements. I tested it on PostgreSQL 9.2 Stable.


On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 8:26 PM, Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
On 2013-12-04 20:19:55 +0200, Metin Doslu wrote:
> - When we increased NUM_BUFFER_PARTITIONS to 1024, this problem is
> disappeared for 8 core machines and come back with 16 core machines on
> Amazon EC2. Would it be related with PostgreSQL locking mechanism?

You could try my lwlock-scalability improvement patches - for some
workloads here, the improvements have been rather noticeable. Which
version are you testing?

Greetings,

Andres Freund

--
 Andres Freund                     http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
 PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: Dave Johansen
Date:
Subject: Recommendations for partitioning?
Next
From: Scott Marlowe
Date:
Subject: Re: WAL + SSD = slow inserts?