On 5/25/15 10:04 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 12:10 AM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de
<mailto:and...@anarazel.de>> wrote:
>
> On 2015-05-20 19:56:39 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > I have done some tests with this patch to see the benefit with
> > and it seems to me this patch helps in reducing the contention
> > around ProcArrayLock, though the increase in TPS (in tpc-b tests
> > is around 2~4%) is not very high.
> >
> > pgbench (TPC-B test)
> > ./pgbench -c 64 -j 64 -T 1200 -M prepared postgres
>
> Hm, so it's a read mostly test.
Write not *Read* mostly.
> I probably not that badly contended on
> the snapshot acquisition itself. I'd guess a 80/20 read/write mix or so
> would be more interesting for the cases where we hit this really bad.
>
Yes 80/20 read/write mix will be good test to test this patch and I think
such a load is used by many applications (Such a load is quite common
in telecom especially their billing related applications) and currently
we don't
have such a test handy to measure performance.
On a side note, I think it would be good if we can add such a test to
pgbench or may be use some test which adheres to TPC-C specification.
Infact, I remember [1] people posting test results with such a workload
showing ProcArrayLock as contention.
[1] -
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/e8870a2f6a4b1045b1c292b77eab207c77069...@szxema501-mbx.china.huawei.com
Anything happen with this?
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting, Austin TX
Experts in Analytics, Data Architecture and PostgreSQL
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
