Re: FSM, now without WAL-logging

Zdenek Kotala wrote:
> I performed performance test (iGEN) on SUN x4600 with 60 concurrent 
> users and see result:>> ...
> 
> I don't see any big difference. Throughput is similar. Only response 
> time seems to be better with your last FSM version.
> 
> I personally happy with performance.

Thanks! I've been running DBT-2 tests myself, and I'm not seeing any 
difference there either:

testno    TPM    NO90    time    comment
36    1405    1.724    6h    fsm-nowal
35    1421    0.761    6h    CVS HEAD
34    1439    1.066    2h    fsm-nowal
33    1442    0.868    2h    CVS HEAD

The NO90 is the 90% percentile of New Order transaction response time. 
there's big variation there in the 6h tests, because of a huge dip in 
performance near the end of the test, both with and without the patch. I  don't have an explanation for the dips, but
itthrows off the response 
 
times for the whole tests. Given that in the 2h tests, which is exactly 
the same as the 6h test, just shorter, there's no degradation in the 
response times, I'm not worried about that.

I don't have access to the site where I used to publish the test results 
earlier, but let me know if you want to see the full test results, and 
I'll try to zip them up and FTP somewhere (~500 MB uncompressed).

I've also tried various pgbench tests, on a RAM disk and otherwise, as 
well as the "table population" test I ran earlier, and don't see any 
difference in performance.

--   Heikki Linnakangas  EnterpriseDB   http://www.enterprisedb.com