On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 7:08 AM, Ashutosh Sharma <ashu.coe...@gmail.com> wrote: > Following are the performance results for read write test observed with > different numbers of "backend_flush_after". > > 1) backend_flush_after = 256kb (32*8kb), tps = 10841.178815 > 2) backend_flush_after = 512kb (64*8kb), tps = 11098.702707 > 3) backend_flush_after = 1MB (128*8kb), tps = 11434.964545 > 4) backend_flush_after = 2MB (256*8kb), tps = 13477.089417
So even at 2MB we don't come close to recovering all of the lost performance. Can you please test these three scenarios? 1. Default settings for *_flush_after 2. backend_flush_after=0, rest defaults 3. backend_flush_after=0, bgwriter_flush_after=0, wal_writer_flush_after=0, checkpoint_flush_after=0 -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
