| From: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Konstantin Knizhnik <k(dot)knizhnik(at)postgrespro(dot)ru>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Sean Chittenden <seanc(at)joyent(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: WAL prefetch |
| Date: | 2018-06-14 13:02:00 |
| Message-ID: | CAA4eK1LGJr0-Qag05nfFmNO-06c-f+z5Aon3rFQDmR1yY5Jn_Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 6:14 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 11:45 PM, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>>> I have tested wal_prefetch at two powerful servers with 24 cores, 3Tb NVME
>>> RAID 10 storage device and 256Gb of RAM connected using InfiniBand.
>>> The speed of synchronous replication between two nodes is increased from 56k
>>> TPS to 60k TPS (on pgbench with scale 1000).
>>
>> That's a reasonable improvement.
>
> Somehow I would have expected more. That's only a 7% speedup.
>
It might be due to the reason that there is already a big overhead of
synchronous mode of replication that it didn't show a big speedup. We
might want to try recovery (PITR) or maybe async replication to see if
we see any better numbers.
--
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2018-06-14 13:10:46 | Re: Few cosmetic suggestions for commit 16828d5c (Fast Alter Table Add Column...) |
| Previous Message | Ashutosh Bapat | 2018-06-14 13:00:59 | Re: Remove mention in docs that foreign keys on partitioned tables are not supported |