On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 5:46 AM, Mark Kirkwood < mark.kirkw...@catalyst.net.nz> wrote: > > On 05/09/14 23:50, Amit Kapila wrote: >> >> On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 8:42 AM, Mark Kirkwood >> > FWIW below are some test results on the 60 core beast with this patch >> applied to 9.4. I'll need to do more runs to iron out the variation, >> > but it looks like the patch helps the standard (write heavy) pgbench >> workload a little, and clearly helps the read only case. >> > >> >> Thanks for doing the test. I think if possible you can take >> the performance data with higher scale factor (4000) as it >> seems your m/c has 1TB of RAM. You might want to use >> latest patch I have posted today. >> > > Here's some fairly typical data from read-write and read-only runs at scale 4000 for 9.4 beta2 with and without the v7 patch (below). I'm not seeing much variation between repeated read-write runs with the same config (which is nice - sleep 30 and explicit checkpoint call between each one seem to help there). > > Interestingly, I note anecdotally that (unpatched) 9.4 beta2 seems to be better at higher client counts than beta1 was... > > In terms of the effect of the patch - looks pretty similar to the scale 2000 results for read-write, but read-only is a different and more interesting story - unpatched 9.4 is noticeably impacted in the higher client counts, whereas the patched version scales as well (or even better perhaps) than in the scale 2000 case.
Yeah, that's what I was expecting, the benefit of this patch will be more at higher client count when there is large data and all the data can fit in RAM . Many thanks for doing the performance test for patch. With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
