Re: PATCH: pgbench - merging transaction logs - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Fabien COELHO
Subject Re: PATCH: pgbench - merging transaction logs
Date
Msg-id alpine.DEB.2.10.1503212036400.14445@sto
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: PATCH: pgbench - merging transaction logs  (didier <did447@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: PATCH: pgbench - merging transaction logs
List pgsql-hackers
Hello Didier,

>> If fprintf takes p = 0.025 (1/40) of the time, then with 2 threads the
>> collision probability would be about 1/40 and the delayed thread would be
>> waiting for half this time on average, so the performance impact due to
>> fprintf locking would be negligeable (1/80 delay occured in 1/40 cases =>
>> 1/3200 time added on the computed average, if I'm not mistaken).

> If  threads run more or less the same code with the same timing after
> a while they will lockstep  on synchronization primitives and your
> collision probability will be very close to 1.

I'm not sure I understand. If transaction times were really constant, then 
after a while the mutexes would be synchronised so as to avoid contention, 
i.e. the collision probability would be 0?

> Moreover  they will write to the same cache lines for every fprintf
> and this is very very bad even without atomic operations.

We're talking of transactions that involve network messages and possibly 
disk IOs on the server, so some cache issues issues within pgbench would 
not be a priori the main performance driver.

-- 
Fabien.



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Fabien COELHO
Date:
Subject: Re: PATCH: pgbench - merging transaction logs
Next
From: "Joshua D. Drake"
Date:
Subject: Re: Remove fsync ON/OFF as a visible option?