On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 10:30 AM, Jonathan Corbet <corbet(at)lwn(dot)net> wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Nov 2010 14:27:12 -0500
> Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> And the bottom line is: if there's any performance benefit at all,
>> it's on the order of 1%. The best result I got was about 3200 TPS
>> with hugepages, and about 3160 without. The noise in these numbers
>> is more than 1% though.
>> This is discouraging; it certainly doesn't make me want to expend the
>> effort to develop a production patch. However, perhaps someone else
>> can try to show a greater benefit under some other test conditions.
> Just a quick note: I can't hazard a guess as to why you're not getting
> better results than you are, but I *can* say that putting together a
> production-quality patch may not be worth your effort regardless. There
> is a nice "transparent hugepages" patch set out there which makes
> hugepages "just happen" when it seems to make sense and the system can
> support it. It eliminates the need for all administrative fiddling and
> for any support at the application level.
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: queej||Date: 2010-11-29 16:01:59|
|Subject: Re: dblink versus long connection strings|
|Previous:||From: Robert Haas||Date: 2010-11-29 15:51:43|
|Subject: Re: pg_execute_from_file review|