On Fri, Jun 9, 2023 at 3:28 AM Gregory Smith wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 8, 2023 at 9:21 PM Andres Freund wrote:
>>
>> You might need to add --no-children to the perf report invocation, otherwise
>> it'll show you the call graph inverted.
>
>
> My problem was not writing kernel symbols out, I was only
On Fri, Jun 9, 2023 at 4:06 AM Gurjeet Singh wrote:
> There is no mention of perf or similar utilities in pgbench-tools
> docs. I'm guessing Linux is the primary platform pgbench-tools gets
> used on most. If so, I think it'd be useful to mention these tools and
> snippets in there to make
On Fri, Jun 9, 2023 at 12:28 AM Gregory Smith wrote:
>
> Let me start with the happy ending to this thread:
Phew! I'm sure everyone would be relieved to know this was a false alarm.
> On Thu, Jun 8, 2023 at 9:21 PM Andres Freund wrote:
>>
>> You might need to add --no-children to the perf
Let me start with the happy ending to this thread:
$ pgbench -S -T 10 -c 32 -j 32 -M prepared -P 1 pgbench
pgbench (15.3 (Ubuntu 15.3-1.pgdg23.04+1))
progress: 1.0 s, 1015713.0 tps, lat 0.031 ms stddev 0.007, 0 failed
progress: 2.0 s, 1083780.4 tps, lat 0.029 ms stddev 0.007, 0 failed...
Hi,
On 2023-06-08 20:20:18 -0400, Gregory Smith wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 8, 2023 at 6:18 PM Andres Freund wrote:
>
> > Could you get a profile with call graphs? We need to know what leads to all
> > those osq_lock calls.
> > perf record --call-graph dwarf -a sleep 1
> > or such should do the trick,
On Thu, Jun 8, 2023 at 6:18 PM Andres Freund wrote:
> Could you get a profile with call graphs? We need to know what leads to all
> those osq_lock calls.
> perf record --call-graph dwarf -a sleep 1
> or such should do the trick, if run while the workload is running.
>
I'm doing something wrong
Hi,
On 2023-06-08 15:18:07 -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> E.g. on my workstation (two sockets, 10 cores/20 threads each), with 32
> clients, performance changes back and forth between ~600k and ~850k. Whereas
> with 42 clients, it's steadily at 1.1M, with little variance.
FWIW, this is with linux
Hi,
On 2023-06-08 15:08:57 -0400, Gregory Smith wrote:
> Pushing SELECT statements at socket speeds with prepared statements is a
> synthetic benchmark that normally demos big pgbench numbers. My benchmark
> farm moved to Ubuntu 23.04/kernel 6.2.0-20 last month, and that test is
> badly broken
On Thu, Jun 8, 2023 at 3:09 PM Gregory Smith wrote:
> Pushing SELECT statements at socket speeds with prepared statements is a
> synthetic benchmark that normally demos big pgbench numbers. My benchmark
> farm moved to Ubuntu 23.04/kernel 6.2.0-20 last month, and that test is badly
> broken
Gregory Smith writes:
> Pushing SELECT statements at socket speeds with prepared statements is a
> synthetic benchmark that normally demos big pgbench numbers. My benchmark
> farm moved to Ubuntu 23.04/kernel 6.2.0-20 last month, and that test is
> badly broken on the system PG15 at larger core
10 matches
Mail list logo
