From: Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>
To: Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com>
Cc: Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>
Cc: Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123@gmail.com>
Cc: Tharakan, Robins <tharar@amazon.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: track_planning causing performance regression
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2020 15:57:38 +0900
Message-ID: <646e5cae-5e8b-feaa-43dc-014bf355bf08@oss.nttdata.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAFj8pRC9Jxa8r5i0TNBWLb8mzuaYzEoLq3QOvip0jVpHPOLbVA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <2895b53b033c47ccb22972b589050dd9@EX13D05UWC001.ant.amazon.com>
<CAOBaU_ZNAjSQEdWK9ERsv6zqhdRqB_C0dVv97BrKETV4Rv7gig@mail.gmail.com>
<d4a15deb-8a85-b78c-b447-bc5df7c4a926@oss.nttdata.com>
<CAH2-WzmVP4ibDDSipQi_BamMrPeB72X8iW0R-T9gA-ZToG=m9g@mail.gmail.com>
<CAH2-WznCT6rZYGYE_Zxf1oYDZVMyXqm+SWRx+R2b5-DX11pmpQ@mail.gmail.com>
<42a13b4c-e60c-c6e7-3475-8eff8050bed4@oss.nttdata.com>
<CAH2-WzmYXtaeCtTEmU_37Eiu5AuRM3etinKFKo=posnLtcxe3g@mail.gmail.com>
<bc8125cb-264e-5a48-7d1f-17b84df831ed@oss.nttdata.com>
<CAFj8pRC9Jxa8r5i0TNBWLb8mzuaYzEoLq3QOvip0jVpHPOLbVA@mail.gmail.com>
On 2020/07/03 13:05, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> Hi
>
> pá 3. 7. 2020 v 4:39 odesílatel Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com <mailto:masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>> napsal:
>
>
>
> On 2020/07/01 7:37, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 6:40 AM Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com <mailto:masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com>> wrote:
> >> Ants and Andres suggested to replace the spinlock used in pgss_store() with
> >> LWLock. I agreed with them and posted the POC patch doing that. But I think
> >> the patch is an item for v14. The patch may address the reported performance
> >> issue, but may cause other performance issues in other workloads. We would
> >> need to measure how the patch affects the performance in various workloads.
> >> It seems too late to do that at this stage of v13. Thought?
> >
> > I agree that it's too late for v13.
>
> Thanks for the comment!
>
> So I pushed the patch and changed default of track_planning to off.
>
>
> Maybe there can be documented so enabling this option can have a negative impact on performance.
Yes. What about adding either of the followings into the doc?
Enabling this parameter may incur a noticeable performance penalty.
or
Enabling this parameter may incur a noticeable performance penalty,
especially when a fewer kinds of queries are executed on many
concurrent connections.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
Advanced Computing Technology Center
Research and Development Headquarters
NTT DATA CORPORATION
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: masao.fujii@oss.nttdata.com, pavel.stehule@gmail.com, pg@bowt.ie, rjuju123@gmail.com, tharar@amazon.com
Subject: Re: track_planning causing performance regression
In-Reply-To: <646e5cae-5e8b-feaa-43dc-014bf355bf08@oss.nttdata.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