I am currently testing this patch on a large machine and will share the
test results in few days of time.
Please excuse any grammatical errors as I am using my mobile device. Thanks.
On Feb 11, 2017 04:59, "Tomas Vondra" <tomas.von...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> As discussed at the Developer meeting ~ a week ago, I've ran a number of
> benchmarks on the commit, on a small/medium-size x86 machines. I currently
> don't have access to a machine as big as used by Alexander (with 72
> physical cores), but it seems useful to verify the patch does not have
> negative impact on smaller machines.
> In particular I've ran these tests:
> * r/o pgbench
> * r/w pgbench
> * 90% reads, 10% writes
> * pgbench with skewed distribution
> * pgbench with skewed distribution and skipping
> And each of that with a number of clients, depending on the number of
> cores available. I've used the usual two boxes I use for all benchmarks,
> i.e. a small i5-2500k machine (8GB RAM, 4 cores), and a medium e5-2620v4
> box (32GB RAM, 16/32 cores).
> Comparing averages of tps, measured on 5 runs (each 5 minutes long), the
> difference between master and patched master is usually within 2%, which is
> pretty much within noise.
> I'm attaching spreadsheets with summary of the results, so that we have it
> in the archives. As usual, the scripts and much more detailed results are
> available here:
> * e5-2620: https://bitbucket.org/tvondra/test-xact-alignment
> * i5-2500k: https://bitbucket.org/tvondra/test-xact-alignment-i5
> I do plan to run these results on the Power8 box I have access to, but
> that will have to wait for a bit, because it's currently doing something
> Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
> PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
> Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org)
> To make changes to your subscription: