Home > mailing lists

Re: refactoring basebackup.c - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From	Suraj Kharage
Subject	Re: refactoring basebackup.c
Date	May 13, 2020 04:01:26
Msg-id	CAF1DzPU4w43cfeWnB01ChR8VCqLnADoV5Wkiunhhjr1XDifutA@mail.gmail.com Whole thread Raw
In response to	Re: refactoring basebackup.c (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>)
Responses	Re: refactoring basebackup.c Re: refactoring basebackup.c
List	pgsql-hackers

Hi,

Did some performance testing by varying TAR_SEND_SIZE with Robert's refactor patch and without the patch to check the impact.

Below are the details:

Backup type: local backup using pg_basebackup

Data size: Around 200GB (200 tables - each table around 1.05 GB)

different TAR_SEND_SIZE values: 8kb, 32kb (default value), 128kB, 1MB (1024kB)

Server details:

RAM: 500 GB CPU details: Architecture: x86_64 CPU op-mode(s): 32-bit, 64-bit Byte Order: Little Endian CPU(s): 128 Filesystem: ext4

	8kb	32kb (default value)	128kB	1024kB
Without refactor patch	real 10m22.718s user 1m23.629s sys 8m51.410s	real 8m36.245s user 1m8.471s sys 7m21.520s	real 6m54.299s user 0m55.690s sys 5m46.502s	real 18m3.511s user 1m38.197s sys 9m36.517s
With refactor patch (Robert's patch)	real 10m11.350s user 1m25.038s sys 8m39.226s	real 8m56.226s user 1m9.774s sys 7m41.032s	real 7m26.678s user 0m54.833s sys 6m20.057s	real 18m17.230s user 1m42.749s sys 9m53.704s

The above numbers are taken from the minimum of two runs of each scenario.

I can see, when we have TAR_SEND_SIZE as 32kb or 128kb, it is giving us a good performance whereas, for 1Mb it is taking 2.5x more time.

Please let me know your thoughts/suggestions on the same.

Thanks & Regards,

Suraj kharage,

EnterpriseDB Corporation,

The Postgres Database Company.

From: Laurenz Albe
Date: 13 May 2020, 03:56:18
Subject: Re: BUG #16419: wrong parsing BC year in to_date() function

From: Chapman Flack
Date: 13 May 2020, 04:28:20
Subject: Re: Do I understand commit timestamps correctly?