On 2016-03-25 23:02:11 +0530, Dilip Kumar wrote: > On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 8:09 PM, Alexander Korotkov < > a.korot...@postgrespro.ru> wrote: > > > Could anybody run benchmarks? Feature freeze is soon, but it would be > > *very nice* to fit it into 9.6 release cycle, because it greatly improves > > scalability on large machines. Without this patch PostgreSQL 9.6 will be > > significantly behind competitors like MySQL 5.7. > > > I have run the performance and here are the results.. With latest patch I > did not see any regression at lower client count (median of 3 reading). > > scale factor 1000 shared buffer 8GB readonly > *Client Base patch* > 1 12957 13068 > 2 24931 25816 > 4 46311 48767 > 32 300921 310062 > 64 387623 493843 > 128 249635 583513 > scale factor 300 shared buffer 8GB readonly > *Client Base patch* > 1 14537 14586 --> one thread number looks little less, generally I get > ~18000 (will recheck). > 2 34703 33929 --> may be run to run variance (once I get time, will > recheck) > 4 67744 69069 > 32 312575 336012 > 64 213312 539056 > 128 190139 380122 > > *Summary:* > > Actually with 64 client we have seen ~470,000 TPS with head also, by > revering commit 6150a1b0. > refer this thread: ( > http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/caa4ek1+zeb8pmwwktf+3brs0pt4ux6rs6aom0uip8c6shjw...@mail.gmail.com > ) > > I haven't tested this patch by reverting commit 6150a1b0, so not sure can > this patch give even better performance ? > > It also points to the case, what Andres has mentioned in this thread. > > http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20160226191158.3vidtk3ktcmhi...@alap3.anarazel.de
On what hardware did you run these tests? Thanks, Andres -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
