Thanks for all the help Tom!
On 4/6/22, 6:07 PM, "Tom Lane" wrote:
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not
click links or open attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the
content is safe.
"Blake, Geoff" writes:
Hi Tom, Andres,
Any additional feedback for this patch?
Thanks,
Geoff Blake
As promised, here is the remaining data:
1 worker, w/o patch: 5236 ms +/- 252ms
1 worker, w/ patch: 5529 ms +/- 168ms
2 worker, w/o patch: 4917 ms +/- 180ms
2 worker, w/ patch: 4745 ms +/- 169ms
4 worker, w/o patch: 6564 ms +/- 336ms
4 worker, w/ patch: 6105 ms +/- 177ms
8 worker, w/o
Tom, Andres,
I spun up a 64-core Graviton2 instance (where I reported seeing improvement
with this patch) and ran the provided regression test with and without my
proposed on top of mainline PG. I ran 4 runs each of 63 workers where we
should see the most contention and most impact from the
Tom,
Hope everything is well going into the new year. I'd like to pick this
discussion back up and your thoughts on the patch with the data I posted 2
weeks prior. Is there more data that would be helpful? Different setup? Data
on older versions of Postgresql to ascertain if it makes more
Hi Tom,
> What did you test exactly?
Tested 3 benchmark configurations on an m6g.16xlarge (Graviton2, 64 cpus, 256GB
RAM)
I set the scale factor to consume about 1/3 of 256GB and the other parameters
in the next line.
pgbench setup: -F 90 -s 5622 -c 256
Pgbench select-only w/ patch 662804