Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1an6OD-0003uX-S3 for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 04 Apr 2016 15:26:05 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1an6OD-000726-Ea for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Mon, 04 Apr 2016 15:26:05 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1an6OC-00071q-Tg for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Mon, 04 Apr 2016 15:26:04 +0000 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1an6O8-0000NR-T4 for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Mon, 04 Apr 2016 15:26:04 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D0FB8C0005DA; Mon, 4 Apr 2016 15:25:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost.localdomain (vpn-49-218.rdu2.redhat.com [10.10.49.218]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u34FPuTa031685 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 4 Apr 2016 11:25:57 -0400 Subject: Re: Speed up Clog Access by increasing CLOG buffers To: Andres Freund References: <20150903114137.GE27649@awork2.anarazel.de> <20160330230914.GH13305@awork2.anarazel.de> <56FD930A.1030005@redhat.com> <64AFABAF-8854-4877-BB79-16A845C62782@anarazel.de> <56FED94F.5050807@redhat.com> <2F91B844-D053-4FC0-A43A-50659DB95719@anarazel.de> Cc: Amit Kapila , pgsql-hackers From: Jesper Pedersen Organization: JBoss, by Red Hat Message-ID: <57028784.6050107@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2016 11:25:56 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <2F91B844-D053-4FC0-A43A-50659DB95719@anarazel.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.68 on 10.5.11.22 X-Pg-Spam-Score: -7.9 (-------) List-Archive: List-Help: List-ID: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Mailing-List: pgsql-hackers Precedence: bulk Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org On 04/01/2016 04:39 PM, Andres Freund wrote: > On April 1, 2016 10:25:51 PM GMT+02:00, Jesper Pedersen wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On 03/31/2016 06:21 PM, Andres Freund wrote: >>> On March 31, 2016 11:13:46 PM GMT+02:00, Jesper Pedersen >> wrote: >>> >>>> I can do a USE_CONTENT_LOCK run on 0003 if it is something for 9.6. >>> >>> Yes please. I think the lock variant is realistic, the lockless did >> isn't. >>> >> >> I have done a run with -M prepared on unlogged running 10min per data >> point, up to 300 connections. Using data + wal on HDD. >> >> I'm not seeing a difference between with and without USE_CONTENT_LOCK >> -- >> all points are within +/- 0.5%. >> >> Let me know if there are other tests I can perform > > How do either compare to just 0002 applied? > 0001 + 0002 compared to 0001 + 0002 + 0003 (either way) were pretty much the same +/- 0.5% on the HDD run. Best regards, Jesper -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers