On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 6:46 PM, Kevin Grittner <kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov> wrote: >>> tps = 21946.961196 (including connections establishing) >>> tps = 22911.873227 (including connections establishing) >>> >>> For write transactions, that seems pretty respectable. >> >> Very. What do you get without the patch? > > [quick runs a couple tests that way] > > Single run with -M simple: > > tps = 23018.314292 (including connections establishing) > > Single run with -M prepared: > > tps = 27910.621044 (including connections establishing) > > So, the patch appears to hinder performance in this environment, > although certainty is quite low with so few samples. I'll schedule > a spectrum of runs before I leave this evening (very soon).
Hmm. There's obviously something that's different in your environment or configuration from what I tested, but I don't know what it is. The fact that your scale factor is larger than shared_buffers might matter; or Intel vs. AMD. Or maybe you're running with synchronous_commit=on? -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
