pg.ddx.io  pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org mailing list archive  

help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
Cc: Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Speed up Clog Access by increasing CLOG buffers
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 16:14:44 +0200
Message-ID: <3f169562-4544-7b2b-9d25-b058da029ffb@2ndquadrant.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+TgmobcD95v4QeD76qWcwTGE7P_31KVxBQGyS6yLh=dubvSfw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAA4eK1+8=X9mSNeVeHg_NqMsOR-XKsjuqrYzQf=iCsdh3U4EOA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAA4eK1K7Jh1GxQeS+9-ZsadZpz+DfiCXVTjqk+X00aCV6gyP0g@mail.gmail.com>
	<26b69fb2-fa4d-530c-7783-1cb9d952c4e5@2ndquadrant.com>
	<781ac43c-da69-f5c7-a828-7b995691d4cc@2ndquadrant.com>
	<CAA4eK1K4HEsy819bkDxA3GxGBRsBvu9MmuGh3Q_CxUho29FG4A@mail.gmail.com>
	<5da94f12-8141-2f2f-016a-09a8e37bdd30@2ndquadrant.com>
	<CAA4eK1J1sJchNAsbbhKP1DSRubcZLtQuiTjWpxdF0rc9+QoXvg@mail.gmail.com>
	<e78b4f32-f24e-f282-1f46-b66d39d9ca9a@2ndquadrant.com>
	<f9a8572b-5f27-6666-0f44-e845480d989e@2ndquadrant.com>
	<43198bfb-391b-75da-0517-31e56c4d11f4@2ndquadrant.com>
	<d7a7e096-daac-9207-8eae-50f450203312@2ndquadrant.com>
	<CA+TgmoZ+2OmyUfcNOPsFwsBXJdBcKKPnLaFJ3DJyYLop0u_OLQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<e654de76-0aaa-2873-e105-b6a358e59894@2ndquadrant.com>
	<CA+TgmoaKi1GDLpBTBBv+jQ0uizu4nev_7iU_9z1i76gNd9Mo8g@mail.gmail.com>
	<d8dd08a9-1352-a34a-833b-6864780a4c53@2ndquadrant.com>
	<CA+TgmobcD95v4QeD76qWcwTGE7P_31KVxBQGyS6yLh=dubvSfw@mail.gmail.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@postgresql.org?body=unsub%20pgsql-hackers>

On 09/29/2016 03:47 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 9:10 PM, Tomas Vondra
> <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>>> I feel like we must be missing something here.  If Dilip is seeing
>>> huge speedups and you're seeing nothing, something is different, and
>>> we don't know what it is.  Even if the test case is artificial, it
>>> ought to be the same when one of you runs it as when the other runs
>>> it.  Right?
>>>
>> Yes, definitely - we're missing something important, I think. One difference
>> is that Dilip is using longer runs, but I don't think that's a problem (as I
>> demonstrated how stable the results are).
>
> It's not impossible that the longer runs could matter - performance
> isn't necessarily stable across time during a pgbench test, and the
> longer the run the more CLOG pages it will fill.
>

Sure, but I'm not doing just a single pgbench run. I do a sequence of 
pgbench runs, with different client counts, with ~6h of total runtime. 
There's a checkpoint in between the runs, but as those benchmarks are on 
unlogged tables, that flushes only very few buffers.

Also, the clog SLRU has 128 pages, which is ~1MB of clog data, i.e. ~4M 
transactions. On some kernels (3.10 and 3.12) I can get >50k tps with 64 
clients or more, which means we fill the 128 pages in less than 80 seconds.

So half-way through the run only 50% of clog pages fits into the SLRU, 
and we have a data set with 30M tuples, with uniform random access - so 
it seems rather unlikely we'll get transaction that's still in the SLRU.

But sure, I can do a run with larger data set to verify this.

>> I wonder what CPU model is Dilip using - I know it's x86, but not which
>> generation it is. I'm using E5-4620 v1 Xeon, perhaps Dilip is using a newer
>> model and it makes a difference (although that seems unlikely).
>
> The fact that he's using an 8-socket machine seems more likely to
> matter than the CPU generation, which isn't much different.  Maybe
> Dilip should try this on a 2-socket machine and see if he sees the
> same kinds of results.
>

Maybe. I wouldn't expect a major difference between 4 and 8 sockets, but 
I may be wrong.

regards

-- 
Tomas Vondra                  http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services


-- 
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers



view thread (248+ messages)  latest in thread

Message-ID: <3f169562-4544-7b2b-9d25-b058da029ffb@2ndquadrant.com>
Permalink:  ../3f169562-4544-7b2b-9d25-b058da029ffb@2ndquadrant.com/
Also on:    postgresql.org/message-id/3f169562-4544-7b2b-9d25-b058da029ffb@2ndquadrant.com

 · 

reply
Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
  reply via email

  To: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
  Cc: tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com, robertmhaas@gmail.com, amit.kapila16@gmail.com, dilipbalaut@gmail.com, andres@anarazel.de
  Subject: Re: Speed up Clog Access by increasing CLOG buffers
  In-Reply-To: <3f169562-4544-7b2b-9d25-b058da029ffb@2ndquadrant.com>

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox