On Wednesday, January 09, 2013 4:57 PM Simon Riggs wrote: > On 9 January 2013 08:05, Amit kapila <amit.kap...@huawei.com> wrote: > > > Update patch contains handling of below Comments > > Thanks > > > > Test results with modified pgbench (1800 record size) on the latest > patch: > > > > -Patch- -tps@-c1- -WAL@-c1- -tps@-c2- - > WAL@-c2- > > Head 831 4.17 GB 1416 7.13 > GB > > WAL modification 846 2.36 GB 1712 3.31 > GB > > > > -Patch- -tps@-c4- -WAL@-c4- -tps@-c8- - > WAL@-c8- > > Head 2196 11.01 GB 2758 13.88 > GB > > WAL modification 3295 5.87 GB 5472 9.02 > GB > > And test results on normal pgbench?
As there was no gain for original pgbench as was shown in performance readings, so I thought it is not mandatory. However I shall run for normal pgbench as it should not lead any further dip in normal pgbench. Thanks for pointing. With Regards, Amit Kapila. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers