On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 7:32 PM, Tsunakawa, Takayuki
<tsunakawa.ta...@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
> From: Thomas Munro [mailto:thomas.mu...@enterprisedb.com]
>> >  huge_pages=off: 70412 tps
>> >  huge_pages=on : 72100 tps
>> Hmm.  I guess it could be noise or random code rearrangement effects.
> I'm not the difference was a random noise, because running multiple set of 
> three runs of pgbench (huge_pages = on, off, on, off, on...) produced similar 
> results.  But I expected a bit greater improvement, say, +10%.  There may be 
> better benchmark model where the large page stands out, but I think pgbench 
> is not so bad because its random data access would cause TLB cache misses.

Your ~2.4% number is similar to what was reported for Linux with 4GB


Later in that thread there was a report of a dramatic ~15% increase in
"best result" TPS, but that was with 60GB of shared_buffers on a
machine with 256GB of RAM:


Thomas Munro

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to