On Sun, Jul 6, 2025 at 10:51 PM Masahiko Sawada wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jul 6, 2025 at 8:03 PM Hayato Kuroda (Fujitsu)
> <kuroda.hay...@fujitsu.com> wrote:
> >
> > Dear hackers,
> >
> > As a confirmation purpose, I did performance testing with four
> > workloads we did before.
>
> Thank you for doing the performance tests!
>
> >
> > 03. pgbench on both sides
> > ========================
> > The workload is mostly same as [3].
> >
> > Workload:
> > - Ran pgbench with 40 clients for the *both side*.
> > - The duration was 120s, and the measurement was repeated 10 times.
> >
> > (bothtest.tar.gz can run the same workload)
> >
> > Test Scenarios & Results:
> > Publisher:
> > - pgHead : Median TPS = 16799.67659
> > - pgHead + patch : Median TPS = 17338.38423
> > Subscriber:
> > - pgHead : Median TPS = 16552.60515
> > - pgHead + patch : Median TPS = 8367.133693
>
> My first impression is that 40 clients is a small number at which a 50%
> performance degradation occurs in 120s. Did you test how many clients are
> required to trigger the same level performance regression with
> retain_conflict_info = off?
Could you please elaborate further on the intention behind the suggested tests
and what outcomes are expected? I ask because we anticipate that disabling
retain_conflict_info should not cause regression, given that dead tuples will
not be retained.
>
> >
> > 04. pgbench on both side, and max_conflict_retention_duration was
> > tuned
> >
> ================================================
> ======================
> > ==
> > The workload is mostly same as [4].
> >
> > Workload:
> > - Initially ran pgbench with 40 clients for the *both side*.
> > - Set max_conflict_retention_duration = {60, 120}
> > - When the slot is invalidated on the subscriber side, stop the benchmark
> and
> > wait until the subscriber would be caught up. Then the number of clients
> on
> > the publisher would be half.
> > In this test the conflict slot could be invalidated as expected when the
> workload
> > on the publisher was high, and it would not get invalidated anymore after
> > reducing the workload. This shows even if the slot has been invalidated
> once,
> > users can continue to detect the update_deleted conflict by reduce the
> > workload on the publisher.
> > - Total period of the test was 900s for each cases.
> >
> > (max_conflixt.tar.gz can run the same workload)
> >
> > Observation:
> > -
> > - Parallelism of the publisher side is reduced till 15->7->3 and finally
> > the
> > conflict slot is not invalidated.
> > - TPS on the subscriber side is improved when the concurrency was
> reduced.
> > This is because the dead tuple accumulation is reduced on subscriber
> due to
> > the reduced workload on the publisher.
> > - when publisher has Nclients=3, no regression in subscriber's TPS
>
> I think that users typically cannot control the amount of workloads in
> production, meaning that once the performance regression starts to happen
> the subscriber could enter the loop where invalidating the slot, recovreing
> the
> performance, creating the slot, and having the performance problem.
Yes, you are right. The test is designed to demonstrate that the slot can
be invalidated under high workload conditions as expected, while
remaining valid if the workload is reduced. In production systems where
workload reduction may not be possible, it’s recommended to disable
`retain_conflict_info` to enhance performance. This decision involves balancing
the need for reliable conflict detection with optimal system performance.
I think the hot standby feedback also has a similar impact on the performance
of the primary, which is done to prevent the early removal of data necessary
for the standby, ensuring that it remains accessible when needed.
Best Regards,
Hou zj
