| From: | "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Heikki Linnakangas" <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "PostgreSQL-development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: HOT pgbench results |
| Date: | 2007-08-07 19:15:37 |
| Message-ID: | 1186514137.4192.49.camel@ebony.site |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 2007-08-07 at 13:16 +0100, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> I ran some CPU intensive pgbench tests on HOT. Results are not
> surprising, HOT makes practically no difference on the total transaction
> rate, but reduces the need to vacuum:
>
> unpatched HOT
> tps 3680 3790
> WAL written(MB) 5386 4804
> checkpoints 10 9
> autovacuums 116 43
> autoanalyzes 139 60
Nor would I expect anything else, on this test.
The pgbench database has 4 tables, of which 3 have one index and 1 has
no indexes at all.
A table without indexes is uncommon and most major entities such as
accounts have 2-3 indexes if not more. So I would be inclined to add a
PK to HISTORY and add two additional indexes to ACCOUNTS and then repeat
the test to see what difference it makes.
--
Simon Riggs
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Gregory Stark | 2007-08-07 19:27:36 | Re: HOT pgbench results |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2007-08-07 19:15:13 | Re: HOT pgbench results |