Gene,
I think tmpfs/ramfs method would increase the performance of PostgreSQL
when workload is write-intensive.
Does pgbench issue write intensive queries ? Since I do not know the
detailed queries issued in pgbench, I am happy if you teach me.
Regards,
-- Hideyuki
Gene wrote:
> I was curious to see how postgres would perform with wal on a tmpfs vs
> disk here are some numbers I got from pgbench. Let me know if I did
> something stupid, this is the first time I've used pgbench. The wal on
> tmpfs method is not significantly faster.
>
> [[ WAL ON TMPFS ]]
> pgbench -i -s 10 -U postgres -d benchmark
> ...
> pgbench -Upostgres -s 10 -c 10 -t 10000 benchmark
> starting vacuum...end.
> transaction type: TPC-B (sort of)
> scaling factor: 10
> number of clients: 10
> number of transactions per client: 10000
> number of transactions actually processed: 100000/100000
> tps = 5817.693724 (including connections establishing)
> tps = 5825.646441 (excluding connections establishing)
>
> [[ WAL ON EXT2 14 U320 DRIVE RAID10 WITH BBU (same as data) ]]
> pgbench -Upostgres -s 10 -c 10 -t 10000 benchmark
> starting vacuum...end.
> transaction type: TPC-B (sort of)
> scaling factor: 10
> number of clients: 10
> number of transactions per client: 10000
> number of transactions actually processed: 100000/100000
> tps = 5653.187997 (including connections establishing)
> tps = 5660.554438 (excluding connections establishing)
>
> pgbench -Upostgres -s 100 -c 10 -t 10000 benchmark
> starting vacuum...end.
> transaction type: TPC-B (sort of)
> scaling factor: 100
> number of clients: 10
> number of transactions per client: 10000
> number of transactions actually processed: 100000/100000
> tps = 5536.019864 (including connections establishing)
> tps = 5543.834350 (excluding connections establishing)
>