On 02/05/2013 11:53 PM, Amit Kapila wrote: >> Performance data for the patch is attached with this mail. >> Conclusions from the readings (these are same as my previous patch): >> >> 1. With orignal pgbench there is a max 7% WAL reduction with not much >> performance difference. >> 2. With 250 record pgbench there is a max wal reduction of 35% with not >> much performance difference. >> 3. With 500 and above record size in pgbench there is an improvement in >> the performance and wal reduction both. >> >> If the record size increases there is a gain in performance and wal >> size is reduced as well. >> >> Performance data for synchronous_commit = on is under progress, I shall >> post it once it is done. >> I am expecting it to be same as previous. > Please find the performance readings for synchronous_commit = on. > > Each run is taken for 20 min. > > Conclusions from the readings with synchronous commit on mode: > > 1. With orignal pgbench there is a max 2% WAL reduction with not much > performance difference. > 2. With 500 record pgbench there is a max wal reduction of 3% with not much > performance difference. > 3. With 1800 record size in pgbench there is both an improvement in the > performance (approx 3%) as well as wal reduction (44%). > > If the record size increases there is a very good reduction in WAL size.
The stats look fairly sane. I'm a little concerned about the apparent trend of falling TPS in the patched vs original tests for the 1-client test as record size increases, but it's only 0.0%->0.2%->0.4%, and the 0.4% case made other config changes too. Nonetheless, it might be wise to check with really big records and see if the trend continues. -- Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
