| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila(at)huawei(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi(dot)kyotaro(at)lab(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com, noah(at)leadboat(dot)com, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Performance Improvement by reducing WAL for Update Operation |
| Date: | 2013-01-11 10:57:45 |
| Message-ID: | CA+U5nM+Smq3rMqPOUBg48-3oxcy4HWejroZOX8vYN31Ue=qLRA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 11 January 2013 10:40, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila(at)huawei(dot)com> wrote:
> Test results with original pgbench (synccommit off) on the latest patch:
>
>
> -Patch- -tps(at)-c1- -WAL(at)-c1- -tps(at)-c2- -WAL(at)-c2-
> Head 1459 1.40 GB 2491 1.70 GB
> WAL modification 1558 1.38 GB 2441 1.59 GB
>
>
> -Patch- -tps(at)-c4- -WAL(at)-c4- -tps(at)-c8- -WAL(at)-c8-
> Head 5139 2.49 GB 10651 4.72 GB
> WAL modification 5224 2.28 GB 11329 3.96 GB
> There is slight performance dip in some of the cases for original pgbench.
Is this just one run? Can we see 3 runs please?
Can we investigate the performance dip at c=2?
--
Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2013-01-11 11:04:35 | bugfix: --echo-hidden is not supported by \sf statements |
| Previous Message | Amit Kapila | 2013-01-11 10:40:46 | Re: Performance Improvement by reducing WAL for Update Operation |