Re: [HACKERS] [POC] Faster processing at Gather node

2017-11-06 Thread Jim Van Fleet
Hi -- pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org wrote on 11/06/2017 09:47:22 AM: > From: Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> > > Hi, > > Please don't top-quote on postgresql lists. Sorry > > On 2017-11-06 09:44:24 -0600, Jim Van Fleet wrote: > > > >hammerdb

Re: [HACKERS] [POC] Faster processing at Gather node

2017-11-06 Thread Jim Van Fleet
correct > >hammerdb, in this configuration, runs a variant of tpcc > > Hard to believe that any of the changes here are relevant in that > case - this is parallelism specific stuff. Whereas tpcc is oltp, right? > > Andres > -- > Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my

Re: [HACKERS] [POC] Faster processing at Gather node

2017-11-06 Thread Jim Van Fleet
Andres Freund wrote on 11/05/2017 03:40:15 PM: hammerdb, in this configuration, runs a variant of tpcc > > What query(s) did you measure? > > Andres > -- > Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. >

Re: [HACKERS] [POC] Faster processing at Gather node

2017-11-05 Thread Jim Van Fleet
IbUJO1z6oi-JHO8Htk=- > I8r3tfguIVgEpNumrjWTKOGkJWIbHQNT2M2-02-8cU=39p2vefOiiZS9ZooPYkZ97U66hw5osqmkCGcikgZCik= > The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company > [attachment "shm-mq-less-spinlocks-v1.2.patch" deleted by Jim Van > Fleet/Austin/Contr/IBM] > -- > Sent via pgsql-hacke

Re: Fw: [HACKERS] HACKERS[PATCH] split ProcArrayLock into multiple parts -- follow-up

2017-09-21 Thread Jim Van Fleet
> On 2017-09-21 15:51:54 -0500, Jim Van Fleet wrote: > > Not to beat on a dead horse, or anything, but this fix was frowned upon > > because in one environment (one socket) it was 6% down and over 15% up in > > the right environment (two sockets). > > > S

Fw: [HACKERS] HACKERS[PATCH] split ProcArrayLock into multiple parts -- follow-up

2017-09-21 Thread Jim Van Fleet
would be "exactly" the same as no parts and hence no degradation in the single socket environment -- and with 2, you get some positive performance. Jim - Forwarded by Jim Van Fleet/Austin/Contr/IBM on 09/21/2017 03:37 PM - pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org wrote on 06/09/2017 0

[HACKERS] HACKERS[PATCH] split ProcArrayLock into multiple parts

2017-06-09 Thread Jim Van Fleet
I left out the retry in LWLockAcquire. ProcArrayLock_part.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] HACKERS[PROPOSAL] split ProcArrayLock into multiple parts

2017-06-08 Thread Jim Van Fleet
pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org wrote on 06/07/2017 04:06:57 PM: ... > > > > Did you intend to attach a patch? > Yes I do -- tomorrow or Thursday -- needs a little cleaning up ... meant Friday > > > > Sokolov Yura has a patch which, to me, looks good for pgbench rw > > > performance. Does

Re: [HACKERS] HACKERS[PROPOSAL] split ProcArrayLock into multiple parts

2017-06-07 Thread Jim Van Fleet
Robert Haas wrote on 06/07/2017 12:12:02 PM: > > OK -- would love the feedback and any suggestions on how to mitigate the low > > end problems. > > Did you intend to attach a patch? Yes I do -- tomorrow or Thursday -- needs a little cleaning up ... > > Sokolov Yura has

Re: [HACKERS] HACKERS[PROPOSAL] split ProcArrayLock into multiple parts

2017-06-07 Thread Jim Van Fleet
Amit Kapila wrote on 06/07/2017 07:34:06 AM: ... > > The down side is that on smaller configurations (single socket) where there > > is less "lock thrashing" in the storage subsystem and there are multiple > > Lwlocks to take for an exclusive acquire, there is a

Re: [HACKERS] HACKERS[PROPOSAL] split ProcArrayLock into multiple parts

2017-06-06 Thread Jim Van Fleet
ed this issue. If so it would be great to learn the solution. 5 июня 2017 г. 10:30 PM пользователь Jim Van Fleet <vanfl...@us.ibm.com> написал: Hi, I have been experimenting with splitting the ProcArrayLock into parts. That is, to Acquire the ProcArrayLock in shared mode, it is only nec

Re: [HACKERS] HACKERS[PROPOSAL] split ProcArrayLock into multiple parts

2017-06-05 Thread Jim Van Fleet
NP, Sokolov -- pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org wrote on 06/05/2017 03:26:46 PM: > From: Sokolov Yura <y.soko...@postgrespro.ru> > To: Jim Van Fleet <vanfl...@us.ibm.com> > Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org > Date: 06/05/2017 03:28 PM > Subject: Re: [HACKE

[HACKERS] HACKERS[PROPOSAL] split ProcArrayLock into multiple parts

2017-06-05 Thread Jim Van Fleet
subsystem and there are multiple Lwlocks to take for an exclusive acquire, there is a decided downturn in performance. On hammerdb, the prototype was 6% worse than the base on a single socket power configuration. If there is interest in this approach, I will submit a patch. Jim

Re: [HACKERS] Should we cacheline align PGXACT?

2017-04-03 Thread Jim Van Fleet
, size of PGPROC remains 16-byte > > aligned. So, probably effect is related to distance between PGPROC > > members... > > > > See comparison of 16-bytes alignment of PGXACT + reduce PGXACT access vs. > > padding of PGPROC. > > My earlier testing had showed t