On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 5:52 AM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 2:04 PM, Masahiko Sawada <sawada.m...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 12:27 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> I have to admit that result is surprising to me. >> >> I think the environment I used for performance measurement did not >> have enough resources. I will do the same benchmark on an another >> environment to see if it was a valid result, and will share it. >> > I did performance measurement on an different environment where has 4 > cores and physically separated two disk volumes. Also I've change the > benchmarking so that COPYs load only 300 integer tuples which are not > fit within single page, and changed tables to unlogged tables to > observe the overhead of locking/unlocking relext locks.
I ran same test as asked by Robert it was just an extension of tests [1] pointed by Amit Kapila, Machine : cthulhu ------------------------ Architecture: x86_64 CPU op-mode(s): 32-bit, 64-bit Byte Order: Little Endian CPU(s): 128 On-line CPU(s) list: 0-127 Thread(s) per core: 2 Core(s) per socket: 8 Socket(s): 8 NUMA node(s): 8 Vendor ID: GenuineIntel CPU family: 6 Model: 47 Model name: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E7- 8830 @ 2.13GHz Stepping: 2 CPU MHz: 1064.000 CPU max MHz: 2129.0000 CPU min MHz: 1064.0000 BogoMIPS: 4266.59 Virtualization: VT-x Hypervisor vendor: vertical Virtualization type: full L1d cache: 32K L1i cache: 32K L2 cache: 256K L3 cache: 24576K NUMA node0 CPU(s): 0-7,64-71 NUMA node1 CPU(s): 8-15,72-79 NUMA node2 CPU(s): 16-23,80-87 NUMA node3 CPU(s): 24-31,88-95 NUMA node4 CPU(s): 32-39,96-103 NUMA node5 CPU(s): 40-47,104-111 NUMA node6 CPU(s): 48-55,112-119 NUMA node7 CPU(s): 56-63,120-127 It has 2 discs with different filesytem as below /dev/mapper/vg_mag-data2 ext4 5.1T 3.6T 1.2T 76% /mnt/data-mag2 /dev/mapper/vg_mag-data1 xfs 5.1T 1.6T 3.6T 31% /mnt/data-mag I have created 2 tables each one on above filesystem. test_size_copy.sh --> automated script to run copy test. copy_script1, copy_script2 -> copy pg_bench script's used by test_size_copy.sh to load to 2 different tables. To run above copy_scripts in parallel I have run it with equal weights as below. ./pgbench -c $threads -j $threads -f copy_script1@1 -f copy_script2@1 -T 120 postgres >> test_results.txt Results : ----------- Clients HEAD-TPS --------- --------------- 1 84.460734 2 121.359035 4 175.886335 8 268.764828 16 369.996667 32 439.032756 64 482.185392 Clients N_RELEXTLOCK_ENTS = 1024 %diff with DEAD ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 87.165777 3.20272258112273 2 131.094037 8.02165409439848 4 181.667104 3.2866504381935 8 267.412856 -0.503031594595423 16 376.118671 1.65461058058666 32 460.756357 4.94805927419228 64 492.723975 2.18558736428913 Not much of an improvement from HEAD Clients N_RELEXTLOCK_ENTS = 1 %diff with HEAD ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 86.288574 2.16412990206786 2 131.398667 8.27266960387414 4 168.681079 -4.09654109854526 8 245.841999 -8.52895416806549 16 321.972147 -12.9797169226933 32 375.783299 -14.4065462395703 64 360.134531 -25.3120196142317 So in case of N_RELEXTLOCK_ENTS = 1 we can see regression as high 25%. ? [1]https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAFiTN-tkX6gs-jL8VrPxg6OG9VUAKnObUq7r7pWQqASzdF5OwA%40mail.gmail.com -- Thanks and Regards Mithun C Y EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
test_size_copy.sh
Description: Bourne shell script
copy_script1
Description: Binary data
copy_script2
Description: Binary data
