From: | Shridhar Daithankar <shridhar_daithankar(at)persistent(dot)co(dot)in> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | 2.4 v/s 2.6 again. |
Date: | 2003-08-29 16:29:14 |
Message-ID: | 200308292159.14095.shridhar_daithankar@persistent.co.in |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
Hi all,
I compared 2.6 with elevator=deadline. It did bring some improvement in
performance. But still it does not beat 2.4.
Attached are three files for details.
I also ran a simple insert benchmark to insert a million record in a simple
table with a small int and a varchar(30).
Here are the results
2.6 deadline
1K/xact 299sec
10K/xact 277 sec
100K/xact 271 sec
2.6 AS
1K/xact 262sec
10K/xact Not done
100K/xact 257 sec
2.6 AS
1K/xact 252sec
10K/xact 243 sec
100K/xact 246 sec
It seems that I noted a test result wrongly. I need to do it again.
Overall 2.6 needs some real IO improvements. Of course it could do better on
multiway machine.
I guess there is no point bothering this with kernel hackers. They know this
stuff already, right.
Looking forward to next release of kernel and hope it improves things...
Shridhar
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
pgbench.7.4CVSHEAD.2.6.0-test4 | text/plain | 2.4 KB |
pgbench.7.4CVSHEAD.2.6.0-test4.deadline | text/plain | 1.3 KB |
pgbench.7.4CVSHEAD.24.20 | text/plain | 2.4 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | William Yu | 2003-08-29 16:33:51 | Re: Hardware recommendations to scale to silly load |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-08-29 16:18:35 | Re: PL/pgSQL functions - text / varchar - havy performance |