Re: Postgres with pthread - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Adam Brusselback
Subject Re: Postgres with pthread
Date
Msg-id CAMjNa7cHrtXRxJM50KnRBrOUhp8JO8PfYF-1b3Qpi0HQmJv_mw@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Postgres with pthread  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Here it is formatted a little better.



So a little over 50% performance improvement for a couple of the test cases.



On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 11:53 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Konstantin Knizhnik <k.knizhnik@postgrespro.ru> writes:
> Below are some results (1000xTPS) of select-only (-S) pgbench with scale
> 100 at my desktop with quad-core i7-4770 3.40GHz and 16Gb of RAM:

> Connections    Vanilla/default       Vanilla/prepared
> pthreads/defaultpthreads/prepared
> 10                    100 191                      
> 106                         207
> 100                  67 131                      
> 105                         168
> 1000                41 65                        
> 55                           102

This table is so mangled that I'm not very sure what it's saying.
Maybe you should have made it an attachment?

However, if I guess at which numbers are supposed to be what,
it looks like even the best case is barely a 50% speedup.
That would be worth pursuing if it were reasonably low-hanging
fruit, but converting PG to threads seems very far from being that.

I think you've done us a very substantial service by pursuing
this far enough to get some quantifiable performance results.
But now that we have some results in hand, I think we're best
off sticking with the architecture we've got.

                        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andrzej Barszcz
Date:
Subject: views
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: views