Horton

Re: 9.2beta1, parallel queries, ReleasePredicateLocks, CheckForSerializableConflictIn in the oprofile

Sergey Koposov <koposov@ast.cam.ac.uk>

View thread
From: Sergey Koposov <koposov@ast.cam.ac.uk>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
Cc: Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com>, Florian Pflug <fgp@phlo.org>, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com>, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org, Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
Date: 2012-05-31T16:54:54Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Commits

Same data as JSON: GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources. API reference →

  1. Improve bulk-insert performance by keeping the current target buffer pinned

On Thu, 31 May 2012, Robert Haas wrote:

> Oh, ho.  So from this we can see that the problem is that we're
> getting huge amounts of spinlock contention when pinning and unpinning
> index pages.
>
> It would be nice to have a self-contained reproducible test case for
> this, so that we could experiment with it on other systems.

I have created it a few days ago:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2012-05/msg01143.php

It is still valid. And I'm using exactly it to test. The only thing to 
change is to create a two-col index and drop another index.
The scripts are precisely the ones I'm using now.

The problem is that in order to see a really big slowdown (10 times slower 
than a single thread) I've had to raise the buffers to 48g but it was 
slow for smaller shared buffer settings as well.

But I'm not sure how sensitive the test is to the hardware.

Cheers,
 	S

*****************************************************
Sergey E. Koposov,  PhD, Research Associate
Institute of Astronomy, University of Cambridge 
Madingley road, CB3 0HA, Cambridge, UK Tel: +44-1223-337-551
Web: http://www.ast.cam.ac.uk/~koposov/