Re: pgbench vs. wait events - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Jeff Janes
Subject Re: pgbench vs. wait events
Date
Msg-id CAMkU=1yVzuJA7sTW-3Ddyn9QYqAbAYG61OWwsfP-WU8f6KUGvg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to pgbench vs. wait events  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: pgbench vs. wait events  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 11:38 AM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,

I decided to do some testing on hydra (IBM-provided community
resource, POWER, 16 cores/64 threads, kernel 3.2.6-3.fc16.ppc64) using
the newly-enhanced wait event stuff to try to get an idea of what
we're waiting for during pgbench.  I did 30-minute pgbench runs with
various configurations, but all had max_connections = 200,
shared_buffers = 8GB, maintenance_work_mem = 4GB, synchronous_commit =
off, checkpoint_timeout = 15min, checkpoint_completion_target = 0.9,
log_line_prefix = '%t [%p] ', max_wal_size = 40GB, log_checkpoints =
on.  During each run, I ran this psql script in another window and
captured the output:

\t
select wait_event_type, wait_event from pg_stat_activity where pid !=
pg_backend_pid()
\watch 0.5

Then, I used a little shell-scripting to count up the number of times
each wait event occurred in the output.  First, I tried scale factor
3000 with 32 clients and got these results:

Scale factor 3000 obviously doesn't fit in shared_buffers.  But does it fit in RAM?  That is, are the backends doing real IO, or they just doing fake IO to the kernel's fs cache?

Cheers,

Jeff

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: autonomous transactions
Next
From: Simon Riggs
Date:
Subject: Re: autonomous transactions