Hi, Konstantin
>Hi,
>I really think that we need to move to global caches (and especially catalog
>caches) in
>Postgres.
>Modern NUMA servers may have hundreds of cores and to be able to utilize all
>of them,
>we may need to start large number (hundreds) of backends.
>Memory overhead of local cache multiplied by 1000 can be quite significant.
Yeah, thank you for the comment.
>I am quite skeptical concerning performance results you have provided.
>Once dataset completely fits in memory (which is true in your case),
>select-only
>pgbench with prepared statements should be about two times faster, than without
>prepared statements. And in your case performance with prepared statements is
>even
>worser.
>
>I wonder if you have repeated each measurement multiple time, to make sure
>that it
>is not just a fluctuation.
>Also which postgresql configuration you have used. If it is default
>postgresql.conf with
>128Mb shared buffers size, then you are measuring time of disk access and
>catalog
>cache is not relevant for performance in this case.
>
>Below are result I got with pgbench scale 100 (with scale 10 results are
>slightly better)
>at my desktop with just 16Gb of RAM and 4 ccore.:
>
> |master branch | prototype |
> proto/master
>(%)
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> pgbench -c10 -T60 -Msimple -S | 187189 |182123 |97%
> pgbench -c10 -T60 -Msimple | 15495 |15112 |97%
> pgbench -c10 -T60 -Mprepared -S | 98273 |92810 |94%
> pgbench -c10 -T60 -Mprepared | 25796 |25169 |97%
>
>As you see there are no surprises here: negative effect of shared cache is the
>largest
>for the case of non-prepared selects (because selects themselves are much
>faster
>than updates and during compilation we have to access relations multiple
>times).
>
As you pointed out my shared_memory and scaling factor was too small.
I did the benchmark again with a new setting and my result seems to reproduce
your result.
On the machine with 128GB memory and 16 cores, shared_buffer was set to 32GB and
db was initialized with -s100.
TPS result follows: (mean of 10 times measurement; round off the decimal)
|master branch | proto |
proto/master (%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
pgbench -c48 -T60 -j16 -Msimple -S |122140 | 114103 | 93
pgbench -c48 -T60 -j16 -Msimple | 7858 | 7822 | 100
pgbench -c48 -T60 -j16 -Mprepared -S |221740 | 210778 | 95
pgbench -c48 -T60 -j16 -Mprepared | 9257 | 8998 | 97
As you mentioned, SELECT only query has more overheads.
( By the way, I think in the later email you mentioned about the result when
the concurrent number of clients is larger.
On this point I'll also try to check the result.)
====================
Takeshi Ideriha
Fujitsu Limited
