RE: [Patch] Optimize dropping of relation buffers using dlist

On Friday, December 4, 2020 12:42 PM, Tang, Haiying wrote:
> Hello, Kirk
> 
> Thanks for providing the new patches.
> I did the recovery performance test on them, the results look good. I'd like to
> share them with you and everyone else.
> (I also record VACUUM and TRUNCATE execution time on master/primary in
> case you want to have a look.)

Hi, Tang.
Thank you very much for verifying the performance using the latest set of patches.
Although it's not supposed to affect the non-recovery path (execution on primary),
It's good to see those results too.

> 1. VACUUM and Failover test results(average of 15 times) [VACUUM]
> ---execution time on master/primary
> shared_buffers      master(sec)
> patched(sec)     %reg=((patched-master)/master)
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -
> 128M                9.440              9.483                       0%
> 10G                74.689             76.219                       2%
> 20G               152.538            138.292                      -9%
> 
> [Failover] ---execution time on standby
> shared_buffers     master(sec)
> patched(sec)     %reg=((patched-master)/master)
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -
> 128M                3.629                2.961                    -18%
> 10G                82.443                2.627                    -97%
> 20G               171.388                2.607                    -98%
> 
> 2. TRUNCATE and Failover test results(average of 15 times) [TRUNCATE]
> ---execution time on master/primary
> shared_buffers     master(sec)
> patched(sec)     %reg=((patched-master)/master)
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -
> 128M               49.271               49.867                     1%
> 10G               172.437              175.197                     2%
> 20G               279.658              278.752                     0%
> 
> [Failover] ---execution time on standby
> shared_buffers    master(sec)
> patched(sec)     %reg=((patched-master)/master)
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -
> 128M               4.877                3.989                    -18%
> 10G               92.680                3.975                    -96%
> 20G              182.035                3.962                    -98%
> 
> [Machine spec]
> CPU : 40 processors  (Intel(R) Xeon(R) Silver 4210 CPU @ 2.20GHz)
> Memory: 64G
> OS: CentOS 8
> 
> [Failover test data]
> Total table Size: 700M
> Table: 10000 tables (1000 rows per table)
> 
> If you have question on my test, please let me know.

Looks great.
That was helpful to see if there were any performance differences than the previous
versions' results. But I am glad it turned out great too.

Regards,
Kirk Jamison