Re: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Alexander Korotkov
Subject Re: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics
Date
Msg-id CAPpHfdtw0fRyUbh4Gi3yhaP=H6frwuLmPMkndicMWSzRUgpvcg@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics  (Alexander Korotkov <a.korotkov@postgrespro.ru>)
Responses Re: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics  (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 11:24 AM, Alexander Korotkov <a.korotkov@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 10:19 PM, Alexander Korotkov <a.korotkov@postgrespro.ru> wrote:
On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 7:39 PM, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> wrote:
As you can see in
http://archives.postgresql.org/message-id/CA%2BTgmoaeRbN%3DZ4oWENLvgGLeHEvGZ_S_Z3KGrdScyKiSvNt3oA%40mail.gmail.com
I'm planning to apply this sometime this weekend, after running some
tests and going over the patch again.

Any chance you could have a look over this?

I took a look at this.  Changes you made look good for me.
I also run test on 4x18 Intel server.

On the top of current master results are following:

clients    TPS
1         12562
2         25604
4         52661
8        103209
10       128599
20       256872
30       365718
40       432749
50       513528
60       684943
70       696050
80       923350
90      1119776
100     1208027
110     1229429
120     1163356
130     1107924
140     1084344
150     1014064
160      961730
170      980743
180      968419

The results are quite discouraging because previously we had about 1.5M TPS in the peak while we have only about 1.2M now.  I found that it's not related to the changes you made in the patch, but it's related to 5364b357 "Increase maximum number of clog buffers".  I'm making same benchmark with 5364b357 reverted.

There are results with 5364b357 reverted.

clients    TPS
    1      12980
    2      27105
    4      51969
    8     105507
   10     132811
   20     256888
   30     368573
   40     467605
   50     544231
   60     590898
   70     799094
   80     967569
   90    1211662
  100    1352427
  110    1432561
  120    1480324
  130    1486624
  140    1492092
  150    1461681
  160    1426733
  170    1409081
  180    1366199 

It's much closer to what we had before.

------
Alexander Korotkov
Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com
The Russian Postgres Company


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: GenericXLogUnregister seems like a pretty horrid idea
Next
From: Andres Freund
Date:
Subject: Re: Move PinBuffer and UnpinBuffer to atomics