From: Jignesh K. Shah <J.K.Shah@Sun.COM>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Scott Carey <scott@richrelevance.com>
Cc: Kevin Grittner <Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Proposal of tunable fix for scalability of 8.4
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2009 15:22:09 -0400
Message-ID: <49B960E1.6070101@sun.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090312191020.GB29971@alvh.no-ip.org>
References: <C5DE96C9.337E%scott@richrelevance.com>
<12916.1236882481@sss.pgh.pa.us>
<20090312191020.GB29971@alvh.no-ip.org>
On 03/12/09 15:10, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>
>> Scott Carey <scott@richrelevance.com> writes:
>>
>>> They are not meaningless. It is certainly more to understand, but the test is entirely valid without that. In a CPU bound / RAM bound case, as concurrency increases you look for the throughput trend, the %CPU use trend and the context switch rate trend. More information would be useful but the test is validated by the evidence that it is held up by lock contention.
>>>
>> Er ... *what* evidence? There might be evidence somewhere that proves
>> that, but Jignesh hasn't shown it. The available data suggests that the
>> first-order performance limiter in this test is something else.
>> Otherwise it should be possible to max out the performance with a lot
>> less than 1000 active backends.
>>
>
> With 200ms of think times as Jignesh just said, 1000 users does not
> equate 1000 active backends. (It's probably closer to 100 backends,
> given an avg. response time of ~20ms)
>
> Something that might be useful for him to report is the avg number of
> active backends for each data point ...
>
short of doing select * from pg_stat_activity and removing the IDLE
entries, any other clean way to get that information. If there is no
other latency then active backends should be active users * 10ms/200ms
or activeusers/20 on average. However the number is still lower than
that since active user can still be waiting for locks which can be
either on CPU (spin) or sleeping (proven by increase in average response
time of execution which includes the wait).
Also till date I am primarily more interested in active backends which
are waiting for acquiring the locks since I find making that more
efficient gives me the biggest return on my buck.. Lower response time
and higher throughput.
-Jignesh
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-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: J.K.Shah@Sun.COM, alvherre@commandprompt.com, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, scott@richrelevance.com, Kevin.Grittner@wicourts.gov
Subject: Re: Proposal of tunable fix for scalability of 8.4
In-Reply-To: <49B960E1.6070101@sun.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