On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 8:09 PM, Fabien COELHO <coe...@cri.ensmp.fr> wrote: > > > Thanks a lot, again, for these tests! > > I think that we may conclude, on these run: > > (1) sorting seems not to harm performance, and may help a lot. >
I agree with first part, but about helping a lot, I am not sure based on the tests conducted by me, among all the runs, it has shown improvement in average TPS is one case and that too with a dip in number of times the TPS is below 10. > (2) Linux flushing with sync_file_range may degrade a little raw tps > average in some case, but definitely improves performance stability > (always 100% availability when on !). > Agreed, I think the benefit is quite clear, but it would be better if we try to do some more test for the cases (data fits in shared_buffers) where we saw small regression just to make sure that regression is small. > (3) posix_fadvise on Linux is a bad idea... the good news is that it > is not needed there:-) How good or bad an idea it is on other system > is an open question... > I don't know what is the best way to verify that, if some body else has access to such a m/c, please help to get that verified. With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
