Re: wal_buffer tests in

From: Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
To: josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: wal_buffer tests in
Date: 2005-07-27 22:00:55
Message-ID: 1122501655.3670.204.camel@localhost.localdomain
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance

On Wed, 2005-07-27 at 13:30 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:

> I ran a wal_buffer test series. It appears that increasing the
> wal_buffers is indeed very important for OLTP applications, potentially
> resulting in as much as a 15% average increase in transaction processing.
> What's interesting is that this is not just true for 8.1, it's true for
> 8.0.3 as well.

The most important thing about these tests is that for the first time we
have eliminated much of the post checkpoint noise-and-delay.

Look at the response time charts between

http://khack.osdl.org/stp/302959/results/0/rt.html

and

http://khack.osdl.org/stp/302963/results/0/rt.html

This last set of results is a thing of beauty and I must congratulate
everybody involved for getting here after much effort.

The graphs are smooth, which shows a balanced machine. I'd like to
repeat test 302963 with full_page_writes=false, to see if those response
time spikes at checkpoint drop down to normal level.

I think these results are valid for large DW data loads also.

Best Regards, Simon Riggs

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2005-07-27 22:01:21 Some new list.c primitives
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2005-07-27 21:54:26 Re: Integrated autovacuum

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Matthew Schumacher 2005-07-27 22:35:20 Performance problems testing with Spamassassin 3.1.0 Bayes module.
Previous Message PFC 2005-07-27 21:53:02 Re: [Bizgres-general] Re: faster INSERT with possible