On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 1:55 PM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 10:04 AM, Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 1:27 PM, KONDO Mitsumasa >> <kondo.mitsum...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: >>> Hi Fujii-san, >>> >>> >>> (2013/09/30 12:49), Fujii Masao wrote: >>>> On second thought, the patch could compress WAL very much because I used >>>> pgbench. >>>> >>>> I will do the same measurement by using another benchmark. >>> >>> If you hope, I can test this patch in DBT-2 benchmark in end of this week. >>> I will use under following test server. >>> >>> * Test server >>> Server: HP Proliant DL360 G7 >>> CPU: Xeon E5640 2.66GHz (1P/4C) >>> Memory: 18GB(PC3-10600R-9) >>> Disk: 146GB(15k)*4 RAID1+0 >>> RAID controller: P410i/256MB >> >> Yep, please! It's really helpful! > > I think it will be useful if you can get the data for 1 and 2 threads > (may be with pgbench itself) as well, because the WAL reduction is > almost sure, but the only thing is that it should not dip tps in some > of the scenarios.
Here is the measurement result of pgbench with 1 thread. scaling factor: 100 query mode: prepared number of clients: 1 number of threads: 1 duration: 900 s WAL Volume - 1344 MB (full_page_writes = on) - 349 MB (compress) - 78 MB (off) TPS 117.369221 (on) 143.908024 (compress) 163.722063 (off) Regards, -- Fujii Masao -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers