Re: Patch: Write Amplification Reduction Method (WARM)
Pavan Deolasee <pavan.deolasee@gmail.com>
From: Pavan Deolasee <pavan.deolasee@gmail.com>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>, Jaime Casanova <jaime.casanova@2ndquadrant.com>,
Haribabu Kommi <kommi.haribabu@gmail.com>, Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com>,
pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2017-03-14T19:24:04Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 7:19 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > Pavan Deolasee wrote: > > > BTW I wanted to share some more numbers from a recent performance test. I > > thought it's important because the latest patch has fully functional > chain > > conversion code as well as all WAL-logging related pieces are in place > > too. I ran these tests on a box borrowed from Tomas (thanks!). This has > > 64GB RAM and 350GB SSD with 1GB on-board RAM. I used the same test setup > > that I used for the first test results reported on this thread i.e. a > > modified pgbench_accounts table with additional columns and additional > > indexes (one index on abalance so that every UPDATE is a potential WARM > > update). > > > > In a test where table + indexes exceeds RAM, running for 8hrs and > > auto-vacuum parameters set such that we get 2-3 autovacuums on the table > > during the test, we see WARM delivering more than 100% TPS as compared to > > master. In this graph, I've plotted a moving average of TPS and the > spikes > > that we see coincides with the checkpoints (checkpoint_timeout is set to > > 20mins and max_wal_size large enough to avoid any xlog-based > checkpoints). > > The spikes are more prominent on WARM but I guess that's purely because > it > > delivers much higher TPS. I haven't shown here but I see WARM updates > close > > to 65-70% of the total updates. Also there is significant reduction in > WAL > > generated per txn. > > Impressive results. Labels on axes would improve readability of the chart > :-) > > Sorry about that. I was desperately searching for Undo button after hitting "send" for the very same reason :-) Looks like I used gnuplot after a few years. Just to make it clear, the X-axis is duration of tests in seconds and Y-axis is 450s moving average of TPS. BTW 450 is no magic figure. I collected stats every 15s and took a moving average of last 30 samples. Thanks, Pavan -- Pavan Deolasee http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
Commits
-
Implement SortSupport for macaddr data type
- f90d23d0c518 10.0 cited
-
Simplify check of modified attributes in heap_update
- 2fd8685e7fd9 10.0 landed
-
Remove direct uses of ItemPointer.{ip_blkid,ip_posid}
- ce96ce60ca22 10.0 landed
-
Fix CatalogTupleInsert/Update abstraction for case of shared indstate.
- aedd554f84bb 10.0 landed
-
Provide CatalogTupleDelete() as a wrapper around simple_heap_delete().
- ab02896510e2 10.0 landed
-
Band-aid fix for incorrect use of view options as StdRdOptions.
- e3e66d8a9813 10.0 cited
-
Update visibility map in the second phase of vacuum.
- fdf9e21196a6 9.3.0 cited
-
Avoid having two copies of the HOT-chain search logic.
- 4da99ea4231e 9.2.0 cited
-
Postgres95 1.01 Distribution - Virgin Sources
- d31084e9d111 7.1.1 cited