On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 07:40:46PM +0530, Rahila Syed wrote: > The tests ran for around 30 mins.Manual checkpoint was run before each test. > > Compression WAL generated %compression Latency-avg CPU usage > (seconds) TPS Latency > stddev > > > on 1531.4 MB ~35 % 7.351 ms > user diff: 562.67s system diff: 41.40s 135.96 > 13.759 ms > > > off 2373.1 MB 6.781 ms > > user diff: 354.20s system diff: 39.67s 147.40 > > 14.152 ms > > The compression obtained is quite high close to 35 %. > CPU usage at user level when compression is on is quite noticeably high as > compared to that when compression is off. But gain in terms of reduction of > WAL > is also high.
I am sorry but I can't understand the above results due to wrapping. Are you saying compression was twice as slow? -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + Everyone has their own god. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
