| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: wal_buffers, redux |
| Date: | 2012-03-13 19:48:32 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmobSzuco2-P5NSuup879jinFPMOSZcuNENjK+JU86aAoCQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 4:45 PM, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Rerunning all 4 benchmarks (both 16MB and 32MB wal_buffers on both
> machines) with fsync=off (as well as synchronous_commit=off still)
> might help clarify things.
I reran the 32-client benchmark on the IBM machine with fsync=off and got this:
32MB: tps = 26809.442903 (including connections establishing)
16MB: tps = 26651.320145 (including connections establishing)
That's a speedup of nearly a factor of two, so clearly fsync-related
stalls are a big problem here, even with wal_buffers cranked up
through the ceiling.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2012-03-13 19:48:37 | Re: pg_upgrade and statistics |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2012-03-13 19:44:28 | Re: pg_upgrade and statistics |