Re: [HACKERS] multi-threaded pgbench
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 23:31, Josh Williams wrote: > On Tue, 2009-07-28 at 23:38 -0400, Josh Williams wrote: >> Huh, running the patched version on a single thread with 128 clients >> just got it to crash. Actually consistently, three times now. Will try >> the same thing on the development box tomorrow morning to get some >> better debugging information. > > So yeah, buffer overrun. > > In pgbench.c FD_SETSIZE is redefined to get around the Windows default > of 64. But this is done after bringing in winsock2.h (a couple levels > in as a result of first including postgres_fe.h). So any fd_set is > built with an array of 64 descriptors, while pgbench thinks it has 1024 > available to work with. > > This was introduced a while back; the multi-threaded patch just makes it > visible by giving it an important pointer to write over. Previously it > would just run over into the loop counter (and probably a couple other > things) and thus it'd continue on happily with the [sub]set it has. Yikes. Yeah, this is fallout from the hacking we did with moving the winsock includes around a while back. At the time the #defines were added, winsock came in through the win32.h file :S > In either case this seems to be a simple fix, to move that #define > earlier (see pgbench_win32.patch.) Yes, and it seems to be entirely unrelated to the multithreaded patch. Thus, applied as a separate patch. -- Magnus Hagander Self: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/ -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] multi-threaded pgbench
This patch is wrapping up nicely. I re-tested against the updated pgbench-mt_20090724 and now I get similar results whether or not --enable-thread-safety is enabled on Linux, so that problem is gone. Josh's successful Windows tests along with finding the bug he attached a patch to is also encouraging. I re-ran my performance tests with the same basic setup (16 core system, database scale=10, read-only tests) but this time increased shared_buffers to 256MB just to see if results popped up significantly (they didn't). Here's a comparison of the original pgbench select-only TPS against the new version using 1 thread: clients threads 16 32 64 128 none91763 69707 68465 63730 1 90797 70117 66324 63626 I ran these a few times and those are basically the same result. If there's a regression using 1 threads instead of 1 process, which I thought I was seeing at one point with j=1/c=128, under closer investigation it would have to be much smaller than the run to run variation of pgbench because it vanished when I collected many runs of data. Running the new pgbench with thread safety turned on: clients threads 16 32 64 128 1 89503 67849 67120 63499 2 97883 91888 87556 84430 4 95319 96409 90445 83569 8 96002 95411 88988 82383 16 103798 95056 87701 82253 32 X 95869 88253 82253 Running it without thread safety turned on so it uses processes instead (this is the case I couldn't report on before): clients threads 16 32 64 128 1 89706 68702 64545 62770 2 99224 91677 88812 82442 4 96124 96552 90245 83311 8 97066 96000 89149 83266 16 103276 96088 88276 82652 32 X 97405 90082 83672 Those two tables are also identical relative to the run to run pgbench noise. This looks ready for a committer review to me, I'm happy that the patch performs as expected and it seems to work across two platforms. To step back for a second, I'm testing a fairly optimistic situation--the standard RHEL 2.6.18 kernel which doesn't have any major issues here--and I see a decent sized speedup (>30%) in the worst case. I've reported before that running pgbench on newer Linux kernels (>=2.6.23) is horribly slow, and sure enough the original results kicking off this thread showed the same thing: only 11600 TPS on a modern 8 core system. That's less than 1/4 what that server is capable of, and this patch allows working around that issue nicely. pgbench not scaling up really a much worse problem than my test results suggest. -- * Greg Smith gsm...@gregsmith.com http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore, MD -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] multi-threaded pgbench
On Tue, 2009-07-28 at 23:38 -0400, Josh Williams wrote: > Huh, running the patched version on a single thread with 128 clients > just got it to crash. Actually consistently, three times now. Will try > the same thing on the development box tomorrow morning to get some > better debugging information. So yeah, buffer overrun. In pgbench.c FD_SETSIZE is redefined to get around the Windows default of 64. But this is done after bringing in winsock2.h (a couple levels in as a result of first including postgres_fe.h). So any fd_set is built with an array of 64 descriptors, while pgbench thinks it has 1024 available to work with. This was introduced a while back; the multi-threaded patch just makes it visible by giving it an important pointer to write over. Previously it would just run over into the loop counter (and probably a couple other things) and thus it'd continue on happily with the [sub]set it has. In either case this seems to be a simple fix, to move that #define earlier (see pgbench_win32.patch.) - Josh Williams diff -c -r1.87 pgbench.c *** contrib/pgbench/pgbench.c 11 Jun 2009 14:48:51 - 1.87 --- contrib/pgbench/pgbench.c 29 Jul 2009 21:18:18 - *** *** 26,31 --- 26,36 * PROVIDE MAINTENANCE, SUPPORT, UPDATES, ENHANCEMENTS, OR MODIFICATIONS. * */ + + #ifdef WIN32 + #define FD_SETSIZE 1024 /* set before winsock2.h is included */ + #endif /* ! WIN32 */ + #include "postgres_fe.h" #include "libpq-fe.h" *** *** 34,41 #include #ifdef WIN32 - #undef FD_SETSIZE - #define FD_SETSIZE 1024 #include #else #include --- 39,44 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] multi-threaded pgbench
On Tue, 2009-07-28 at 12:10 -0400, Greg Smith wrote: > If your test system > is still setup, it might be interesting to try the 64 and 128 client cases > with Task Manager open, to see what percentage of the CPU the pgbench > driver program is using. If the pgbench client isn't already pegged at a > full CPU, I wouldn't necessarily threading it to help--it would just add > overhead that doesn't buy you anything, which seems to be what you're > measuring. That's a really good point, I do recall seeing pgbench taking only a fraction of the CPU... Running it again, it hovers around 6 or 7 percent in both cases, so it's only using up around half a core. Huh, running the patched version on a single thread with 128 clients just got it to crash. Actually consistently, three times now. Will try the same thing on the development box tomorrow morning to get some better debugging information. > All the Linux tests suggest that limit tends up show up at over 20,000 TPS > nowawadys, so maybe your Window system is bottlenecking somewhere > completely different before it reaches saturation on the client. I figured it was just indicating a limitation of the environment, where Windows has some kind of inefficiency either in the PG port or just something inherent in how the OS works. It does make me wonder where exactly all that CPU time is going, though. OProfile, how I miss thee. But that's a different discussion entirely. - Josh Williams -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] multi-threaded pgbench
On Tue, 28 Jul 2009, Josh Williams wrote: Maybe pgbench itself is less of a bottleneck in this environment, relatively speaking? On UNIXish systems, you know you've reached the conditions under which the threaded pgbench would be helpful if the pgbench client program itself is taking up a large percentage of a CPY just by itself. If your test system is still setup, it might be interesting to try the 64 and 128 client cases with Task Manager open, to see what percentage of the CPU the pgbench driver program is using. If the pgbench client isn't already pegged at a full CPU, I wouldn't necessarily threading it to help--it would just add overhead that doesn't buy you anything, which seems to be what you're measuring. All the Linux tests suggest that limit tends up show up at over 20,000 TPS nowawadys, so maybe your Window system is bottlenecking somewhere completely different before it reaches saturation on the client. In any case, Josh's review is exactly what I wanted to see here--the code does compile and run successfully for someone besides its author under Windows. Making it *effective* on that platform might end up being outside the scope of what we want to chew on right now. I'll have updated performance results to submit later this week against the updated patch. -- * Greg Smith gsm...@gregsmith.com http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore, MD -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] multi-threaded pgbench
On Wed, 2009-07-22 at 22:23 -0400, Greg Smith wrote: > Onto performance. My test system has a 16 cores of Xeon X5550 @ > 2.67GHz. > I created a little pgbench database (-s 10) and used the default > postgresql.conf parameters for everything but max_connections for a > rough > initial test. To test on Windows, I set up a similar database on an 8-core 2.0GHz E5335 (closest match I have.) It's compiled against a fresh CVS pull from this morning, patched with the "20090724" updated version. I tried to mirror the tests as much as possible, including the concurrent thread counts despite having half the number of available cores. Doing that didn't have much impact on the results, but more on that later. Comparing the unpatched version to the new version running a single client thread, there's no significant performance difference: C:\pgsql85>bin\pgbenchorig.exe -S -c 8 -t 10 pgbench ... tps = 19061.234215 (including connections establishing) C:\pgsql85>bin\pgbench.exe -S -c 8 -t 10 pgbench tps = 18852.928562 (including connections establishing) As a basis of comparison the original pgbench was run with increasing client counts, which shows the same drop off in throughput past the 16-client sweet spot: con tps 8 18871 16 19161 24 18804 32 18670 64 17598 128 16664 However I was surprised to see these results for the patched version, running 16 worker threads (apart from the 8 client run of course.) C:\pgsql85>bin\pgbench.exe -S -j 16 -c 128 -t 10 pgbench ... con tps 8 18435 (-j 8) 16 18866 24 - 32 17937 64 17016 128 15930 In all cases the patched version resulted in a lower performing output than the unpatched version. It's clearly working, at least in that it's launching the requested number of worker threads when looking at the process. Adjusting the worker thread count down to match the number of cores yielded identical results in the couple of test cases I ran. Maybe pgbench itself is less of a bottleneck in this environment, relatively speaking? - Josh Williams -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] multi-threaded pgbench
Itagaki Takahiro wrote: > Greg Smith wrote: > > That second code path, when --enable-thread-safety is turned off, crashes > > and burns on my Linux system: > > It comes from confliction of identifiers. > Renaming identifiers with #define can solve the errors: > #define pthread_t pg_pthread_t Here is a patch to fix compile errors by identifier-renaming when thread-safety is disabled on linux. Also I fixed file descriptor leaks at the end of benchmark. Regards, --- ITAGAKI Takahiro NTT Open Source Software Center pgbench-mt_20090724.patch Description: Binary data -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] multi-threaded pgbench
Greg Smith wrote: > That second code path, when --enable-thread-safety is turned off, crashes > and burns on my Linux system: It comes from confliction of identifiers. Renaming identifiers with #define can solve the errors: #define pthread_t pg_pthread_t #define pthread_attr_t pg_pthread_attr_t #define pthread_create pg_pthread_create #define pthread_joinpg_pthread_join typedef struct fork_pthread*pthread_t; ... Another idea is that we don't use pthread and add 'pg_thread' wrapper module on the top of pthread. We can choose either of implementations... Which is better? > $ ./pgbench -j 16 -S -c 24 -t 1 pgbench > number of clients (24) must be a multiple number of threads (16) It's hard on forking-thread platforms because multiple threads need to access the job queue. We need to put the queue on inter-process shared memory, but it introduces additional complexities. Regards, --- ITAGAKI Takahiro NTT Open Source Software Center -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] multi-threaded pgbench
I just took multi-threaded pgbench for an initial spin, looks good overall with only a couple of small rough edges. The latest code works differently depending on whether you compiled with --enable-thread-safety or not, it defines some structures based on fork if it's not enabled: #elif defined(ENABLE_THREAD_SAFETY) #include #else #include typedef struct fork_pthread*pthread_t; typedef int pthread_attr_t; static int pthread_create(pthread_t *thread, pthread_attr_t *attr, void * (*start_routine)(void *), void * arg); static int pthread_join(pthread_t th, void **thread_return); #endif That second code path, when --enable-thread-safety is turned off, crashes and burns on my Linux system: gcc -O2 -Wall -Wmissing-prototypes -Wpointer-arith -Wdeclaration-after-statement -Wendif-labels -fno-strict-aliasing -fwrapv -I../../src/interfaces/libpq -I. -I../../src/include -D_GNU_SOURCE -c -o pgbench.o pgbench.c -MMD -MP -MF .deps/pgbench.Po pgbench.c:72: error: conflicting types for pthread_t /usr/include/bits/pthreadtypes.h:50: error: previous declaration of pthread_t was here pgbench.c:73: error: conflicting types for pthread_attr_t /usr/include/bits/pthreadtypes.h:57: error: previous declaration of pthread_attr_t was here So that's the first problem to sort out, I was planning to test that path as well as the regular threaded one. Since I'd expect there to be Linux packages built both with and without thread safety enabled, they both should work, even though people should always be turning safety on nowadays. We should try to get a Windows based tester here too at some point, there's a completely different set of thread wrapper code for that OS that could use a look by somebody more familiar than me with that platform. The second thing that concerns me is that there's a limitation in the code where the number of clients must be a multiple of the number of workers. When I tried to gradually step up the client volume the tests wouldn't run: $ ./pgbench -j 16 -S -c 24 -t 1 pgbench number of clients (24) must be a multiple number of threads (16) Once the larger issues are worked out, I would be much friendlier if it were possible to pass new threads a client count so that the last in the pool could service a smaller number. The logic for that is kind of a pain--in this case you'd want 8 threads running 2 clients each while 8 ran 1 client--but it would really be much friendlier and flexible that way. Onto performance. My test system has a 16 cores of Xeon X5550 @ 2.67GHz. I created a little pgbench database (-s 10) and used the default postgresql.conf parameters for everything but max_connections for a rough initial test. Performance on this box drops off pretty fast once you get past 16 clients; using the original, unpatched pgbench: c tps 16 86887 24 70685 32 63787 64 64712 128 60602 A quick test of the new version suggest that there's no glaring performance regression running it with a single client thread: $ ./pgbench.orig -S -c 64 -t 1 pgbench tps = 64712.451737 (including connections establishing) $ ./pgbench -S -c 64 -t 1 pgbench tps = 63806.494046 (including connections establishing) So I moved onto to testing with a worker thread per CPU: ./pgbench -j 16 -S -c 16 -t 10 pgbench ./pgbench -j 16 -S -c 32 -t 5 pgbench ./pgbench -j 16 -S -c 64 -t 1 pgbench ./pgbench -j 16 -S -c 128 -t 1 pgbench And got considerably better results: c tps 16 96223 32 89014 64 82487 128 74217 That's as much as a 40% speedup @ 32 clients, and even a decent win at lower counts. The patch looks like it accomplishes its performance goals quite well here. I'll be glad to run some more extensive performance tests, but I'd like to at least see the version without --enable-thread-safety fixed first so that I can queue up and compare both versions when I go through that. -- * Greg Smith gsm...@gregsmith.com http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore, MD -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] multi-threaded pgbench
On Jul 18, 2009, at 3:40 PM, Greg Stark wrote: On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 8:25 PM, Robert Haas wrote: On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 4:51 AM, Itagaki Takahiro wrote: Here is an updated version of multi-threaded pgbench patch. Greg (Smith), do you have time to review this version? If not, I will assign a round-robin reviewer when one becomes available. Incidentally you could assign me something if you want. OK. I gave feedback on Simon/Your join removal and the Append min/max patch. I don't think either has really reached any conclusive "finished" state though. I suppose I should mark your patch as "returned with feedback" even if it's mostly just "good work, keep going"? And the other patch isn't actually in this commitfest but I think we're still discussing what it should do. Well, I think we really need Tom to look at join removal. If he doesn't have any better ideas for how to structure the code it's not clear to me that we shouldn't just commit what I already did and then start future work from there. But this seems like an issue for that thread rather than this one. Wrt append min/max I think we should postpone further discussion until end of commitfest, since it was submitted mid-CommitFest. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] multi-threaded pgbench
On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 12:50 AM, Josh Berkus wrote: >> Greg (Smith), do you have time to review this version? If not, I will >> assign a round-robin reviewer when one becomes available. > > I can do a concurrency test of this next week. Sounds good. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] multi-threaded pgbench
Greg (Smith), do you have time to review this version? If not, I will assign a round-robin reviewer when one becomes available. I can do a concurrency test of this next week. -- Josh Berkus PostgreSQL Experts Inc. www.pgexperts.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] multi-threaded pgbench
On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 8:25 PM, Robert Haas wrote: > On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 4:51 AM, Itagaki > Takahiro wrote: >> Here is an updated version of multi-threaded pgbench patch. > > Greg (Smith), do you have time to review this version? If not, I will > assign a round-robin reviewer when one becomes available. Incidentally you could assign me something if you want. I gave feedback on Simon/Your join removal and the Append min/max patch. I don't think either has really reached any conclusive "finished" state though. I suppose I should mark your patch as "returned with feedback" even if it's mostly just "good work, keep going"? And the other patch isn't actually in this commitfest but I think we're still discussing what it should do. -- greg http://mit.edu/~gsstark/resume.pdf -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] multi-threaded pgbench
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 4:51 AM, Itagaki Takahiro wrote: > Here is an updated version of multi-threaded pgbench patch. Greg (Smith), do you have time to review this version? If not, I will assign a round-robin reviewer when one becomes available. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] multi-threaded pgbench
Here is an updated version of multi-threaded pgbench patch. Andrew Dunstan wrote: > > Hmm, but how will you communicate stats back from the sub-processes? > My first reaction is to say "use a pipe." I added partial implementation of pthread using fork and pipe for platform without ENABLE_THREAD_SAFETY. Pthread version is not necessarily needed if we have the fork version, but I still left it as-is. The name of new option is still -j, that is borrowed from pg_restore and gmake. They use -j for multi-worker-processing. -j NUM number of threads (default: 1) I needed to modify the meaning of tps (excluding connections establishing) a little because connections are executed in parallel. I subtract average of connection times from total execution time. total_time := last_thread_finish_time - first_thread_start_time tps (including connection) := num_transaction / total_time tps (excluding connection) := num_transaction / (total_time - (total_connection_time / num_threads)) I notice that I also fixed a few parts of pgbench: * Use instr_time instead of struct timeval. Macros in portability/instr_time.h makes codes cleaner. * Accept "\sleep 1ms" format (no spaces between "1" and "ms") for sleep meta command. The old version of pgbench interprets "1ms" as just "1", that means "1 s". It was confusable. I'll add the patch to the commitfest page. Regards, --- ITAGAKI Takahiro NTT Open Source Software Center pgbench-mt_20090709.patch Description: Binary data -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] multi-threaded pgbench
On Wed, 8 Jul 2009, Tom Lane wrote: pg_restore doesn't need anything more than a success/failure result from its child processes, but I think pgbench will want more. The biggest chunk of returned state to consider is how each client transaction generates a line of latency information that goes into the log file. -- * Greg Smith gsm...@gregsmith.com http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore, MD -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] multi-threaded pgbench
Andrew Dunstan wrote: > I think you should have it use pthreads if available, or Windows threads > there, or fork() elsewhere. Just a question - which platform does not support any threading? I think threading is very common in modern applications. If there are such OSes, they seem to be just abandoned and not maintained... Regards, --- ITAGAKI Takahiro NTT Open Source Software Center -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] multi-threaded pgbench
Tom Lane wrote: Andrew Dunstan writes: I think you should have it use pthreads if available, or Windows threads there, or fork() elsewhere. Hmm, but how will you communicate stats back from the sub-processes? pg_restore doesn't need anything more than a success/failure result from its child processes, but I think pgbench will want more. My first reaction is to say "use a pipe." cheers andtrew -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] multi-threaded pgbench
Andrew Dunstan writes: > I think you should have it use pthreads if available, or Windows threads > there, or fork() elsewhere. Hmm, but how will you communicate stats back from the sub-processes? pg_restore doesn't need anything more than a success/failure result from its child processes, but I think pgbench will want more. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] multi-threaded pgbench
On Wed, 8 Jul 2009, Itagaki Takahiro wrote: Multi-threading would be a solution. The attached patch adds -j (number of jobs) option to pgbench. Should probably name this -w "numbers of workers" to stay consistent with terminology used on the server side. Is it acceptable to use pthread in contrib module? If ok, I will add the patch to the next commitfest. pgbench is basically broken right now, as demonstrated by the lack of scaling show in your results and similar ones I've collected. This looks like it fixes the primary problem there. While it would be nice if a multi-process based solution were written instead, unless someone is willing to step up and volunteer to write one I'd much rather see your patch go in than doing nothing at all. It shouldn't even impact old results if you don't toggle the option on. I have 3 new server systems I was going to run pgbench on anyway in the next month as part of my standard performance testing on new hardware. I'll be happy to mix in results using the multi-threaded pgbench to check the patch's performance, along with the rest of the initial review here. -- * Greg Smith gsm...@gregsmith.com http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore, MD -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] multi-threaded pgbench
Tom Lane wrote: Alvaro Herrera writes: Itagaki Takahiro wrote: Is it acceptable to use pthread in contrib module? We don't have a precedent it seems. I think the requirement would be that it should compile if pthread support is not present. Right. Breaking it for non-pthread environments is not acceptable. The real question here is whether it will be a problem if pgbench delivers significantly different results when built with or without threading support. I can see arguents either way on that ... well pgbench as it is now is now is more ore less unusable on modern hardware for SELECT type queries(way too slow to scale to what the backend can do thses days and the number of cores in a recent box). It is only somewhat usable on the default update heavy test as well because even there it is hitting scalability limits (ie I can easily improve on its numbers with a perl script that forks and issues the same queries). I would even go as far as issuing a WARNING if pgbench is invoked and not compiled with threads if we accept this patch... Stefan -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] multi-threaded pgbench
Heikki Linnakangas wrote: Alvaro Herrera wrote: Itagaki Takahiro wrote: Is it acceptable to use pthread in contrib module? We don't have a precedent it seems. I think the requirement would be that it should compile if pthread support is not present. My thoughts as well. But I wonder, would it be harder or easier to use fork() instead? I have just been down this road to some extent with parallel pg_restore, which uses threads on Windows. That might be useful as a bit of a template. Extending it to use pthreads would probably be fairly trivial. The thread/fork specific stuff ended up being fairly isolated for pg_restore. see src/bin/pg_dump/pg_backup_archiver.c:spawn_restore() I think you should have it use pthreads if available, or Windows threads there, or fork() elsewhere. cheers andrew -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] multi-threaded pgbench
Alvaro Herrera writes: > Itagaki Takahiro wrote: >> Is it acceptable to use pthread in contrib module? > We don't have a precedent it seems. I think the requirement would be > that it should compile if pthread support is not present. Right. Breaking it for non-pthread environments is not acceptable. The real question here is whether it will be a problem if pgbench delivers significantly different results when built with or without threading support. I can see arguents either way on that ... regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] multi-threaded pgbench
Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Itagaki Takahiro wrote: > >> Is it acceptable to use pthread in contrib module? > > We don't have a precedent it seems. I think the requirement would be > that it should compile if pthread support is not present. My thoughts as well. But I wonder, would it be harder or easier to use fork() instead? -- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
Re: [HACKERS] multi-threaded pgbench
Itagaki Takahiro wrote: > Is it acceptable to use pthread in contrib module? We don't have a precedent it seems. I think the requirement would be that it should compile if pthread support is not present. > If ok, I will add the patch to the next commitfest. Add it anyway -- discussion should happen during commitfest if it doesn't spark right away. -- Alvaro Herrerahttp://www.CommandPrompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
