On 8/8/07, Merlin Moncure <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 8/7/07, Heikki Linnakangas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I ran some CPU intensive pgbench tests on HOT. Results are not
> > surprising, HOT makes practically no difference on the total transaction
> > rate, but reduces the need to vacuum:
> >
> >                 unpatched       HOT
> > tps             3680            3790
> > WAL written(MB) 5386            4804
> > checkpoints     10              9
> > autovacuums     116             43
> > autoanalyzes    139             60
>
> Here are some more results...all stock except for partial writes, 24
> segments (fsync on).  hardware is four 15k sas in a raid 10.  I am
> seeing very good results in other real wold scenarios outside of
> pgbench....anyone is interested drop me a line.  Note I cut the
> transaction runs down to 100k from 1M.
>
> *** HOT ***
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] root]$ time pgbench -c 5 -t 100000
> starting vacuum...end.
> transaction type: TPC-B (sort of)
> scaling factor: 10
> number of clients: 5
> number of transactions per client: 100000
> number of transactions actually processed: 500000/500000
> tps = 1156.605130 (including connections establishing)
> tps = 1156.637464 (excluding connections establishing)
>
> real    7m12.311s
> user    0m26.784s
> sys     0m25.429s
>
> *** cvs, HOT ***
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] pgsql]$ time pgbench -c 5 -t 100000
> starting vacuum...end.
> transaction type: TPC-B (sort of)
> scaling factor: 10
> number of clients: 5
> number of transactions per client: 100000
> number of transactions actually processed: 500000/500000
> tps = 630.510918 (including connections establishing)
> tps = 630.520485 (excluding connections establishing)
>
> real    13m13.019s
> user    0m27.278s
> sys     0m26.092s

oops! second case was w/o HOT patch applied (but we knew that) :D

merlin

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend

Reply via email to