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

help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Gregory Stark <stark@enterprisedb.com>
To: Jignesh K. Shah <J.K.Shah@Sun.COM>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: 8.3beta1 testing on Solaris
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 23:37:33 +0100
Message-ID: <87640u95xu.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4720FB72.8060800@sun.com>
References: <4720FB72.8060800@sun.com>


"Jignesh K. Shah" <J.K.Shah@Sun.COM> writes:

> CLOG data is not cached in any PostgreSQL shared memory segments and hence
> becomes the bottleneck as it has to constantly go to the filesystem to get
> the read data.

This is the same bottleneck you discussed earlier. CLOG reads are cached in
the Postgres shared memory segment but only NUM_CLOG_BUFFERS are which
defaults to 8 buffers of 8kb each. With 1,000 clients and the transaction rate
you're running you needed a larger number of buffers.

Using the filesystem buffer cache is also an entirely reasonable solution
though. That's surely part of the logic behind not trying to keep more of the
clog in shared memory. Do you have any measurements of how much time is being
spent just doing the logical I/O to the buffer cache for the clog pages? 4MB/s
seems like it's not insignificant but your machine is big enough that perhaps
I'm thinking at the wrong scale.

I'm really curious whether you see any benefit from the vxid read-only
transactions. I'm not sure how to get an apples to apples comparison though.
Ideally just comparing it to CVS HEAD from immediately prior to the vxid patch
going in. Perhaps calling some function which forces an xid to be allocated
and seeing how much it slows down the benchmark would be a good substitute.

-- 
  Gregory Stark
  EnterpriseDB          http://www.enterprisedb.com



view thread (16+ messages)  latest in thread

Message-ID: <87640u95xu.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com>
Permalink:  ../87640u95xu.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com/
Also on:    postgresql.org/message-id/87640u95xu.fsf@oxford.xeocode.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-performance@postgresql.org
  Cc: stark@enterprisedb.com, J.K.Shah@Sun.COM, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
  Subject: Re: 8.3beta1 testing on Solaris
  In-Reply-To: <87640u95xu.fsf@oxford.xeocode.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