On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 12:40 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 5:11 PM, Tomas Vondra
> <tomas.von...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
>> IMHO in the ideal case the first message in this thread would provide a test
>> case, demonstrating the effect of the patch. Then we wouldn't have the issue
>> of looking for a good workload two years later.
>> But now that I look at the first post, I see it apparently used a plain
>> tpc-b pgbench (with synchronous_commit=on) to show the benefits, which is
>> the workload I'm running right now (results sometime tomorrow).
>> That workload clearly uses no savepoints at all, so I'm wondering why you
>> suggested to use several of them - I know you said that it's to show
>> differences between the approaches, but why should that matter to any of the
>> patches (and if it matters, why I got almost no differences in the
>> benchmarks)?
>> Pardon my ignorance, CLOG is not my area of expertise ...
> It's possible that the effect of this patch depends on the number of
> sockets.  EDB test machine cthulhu as 8 sockets, and power2 has 4
> sockets.  I assume Dilip's tests were run on one of those two,

I think it is former (8 socket machine).

> although he doesn't seem to have mentioned which one.  Your system is
> probably 2 or 4 sockets, which might make a difference.  Results might
> also depend on CPU architecture; power2 is, unsurprisingly, a POWER
> system, whereas I assume you are testing x86.  Maybe somebody who has
> access should test on hydra.pg.osuosl.org, which is a community POWER
> resource.  (Send me a private email if you are a known community
> member who wants access for benchmarking purposes.)
> Personally, I find the results so far posted on this thread thoroughly
> unimpressive.  I acknowledge that Dilip's results appear to show that
> in a best-case scenario these patches produce a rather large gain.
> However, that gain seems to happen in a completely contrived scenario:
> astronomical client counts, unlogged tables, and a test script that
> maximizes pressure on CLogControlLock.

You are right that the scenario is somewhat contrived, but I think he
hasn't posted the results for simple-update or tpc-b kind of scenarios
for pgbench, so we can't conclude that those won't show benefit.  I
think we can see benefits with synchronous_commit=off as well may not
be as good as with unlogged tables.  The other thing to keep in mind
is that reducing contention on one lock (assume in this case
CLOGControlLock) also gives benefits when we reduce contention on
other locks (like ProcArrayLock, WALWriteLock, ..).  Last time we have
verified this effect with Andres's patch (cache the snapshot) which
reduces the remaining contention on ProcArrayLock.  We have seen that
individually that patch gives some benefit, but by removing the
contention on CLOGControlLock with the patches (increase the clog
buffers and grouping stuff, each one helps) discussed in this thread,
it gives much bigger benefit.

You point related to high-client count is valid and I am sure it won't
give noticeable benefit at lower client-count as the the
CLOGControlLock contention starts impacting only at high-client count.
I am not sure if it is good idea to reject a patch which helps in
stabilising the performance (helps in falling off the cliff) when the
processes increases the number of cores (or hardware threads)

>  If you have to work that hard
> to find a big win, and tests under more reasonable conditions show no
> benefit, it's not clear to me that it's really worth the time we're
> all spending benchmarking and reviewing this, or the risk of bugs, or
> the damage to the SLRU abstraction layer.

I agree with you unless it shows benefit on somewhat more usual
scenario's, we should not accept it.  So shouldn't we wait for results
of other workloads like simple-update or tpc-b on bigger machines
before reaching to conclusion?

With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to