From: pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org > [mailto:pgsql-hackers-ow...@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Ashutosh Sharma > To start with, I ran the regression test-suite and didn't find any failures. > But, then I am not sure if huge_pages are getting used or not. However, > upon checking the settings for huge_pages and I found it as 'on'. I am > assuming, if huge pages is not being used due to shortage of large pages, > it should have fallen back to non-huge pages.
You are right, the server falls back to non-huge pages when the large pages run
short.
> I also ran the pgbench tests on read-only workload and here are the results
> I got.
>
> pgbench -c 4 -j 4 - T 600 bench
>
> huge_pages=on, TPS = 21120.768085
> huge_pages=off, TPS = 20606.288995
Thanks. It's about 2% improvement, which is the same as what I got.
From: Thomas Munro [mailto:thomas.mu...@enterprisedb.com]
> The line beginning 'Huge pages are known as...' has been accidentally
> duplicated.
Oops, how careless I was. Fixed. As Ashutosh referred, I added a very simple
suggestion to use Windows Group Policy tool.
Regards
Takayuki Tsunakawa
win_large_pages_v9.patch
Description: win_large_pages_v9.patch
-- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
