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 tp
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 s
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 pa
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 pat
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
