Re: Perf Benchmarking and regression.
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Perf Benchmarking and regression. |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+TgmoZzW-SPsMeEL+D08NAvzZoWGSDqrz8X2-=oOVC9i-EWsQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Perf Benchmarking and regression. (Ashutosh Sharma <ashu.coek88@gmail.com>) |
Ответы |
Re: Perf Benchmarking and regression.
Re: Perf Benchmarking and regression. |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 7:08 AM, Ashutosh Sharma <ashu.coek88@gmail.com> wrote: > Following are the performance results for read write test observed with > different numbers of "backend_flush_after". > > 1) backend_flush_after = 256kb (32*8kb), tps = 10841.178815 > 2) backend_flush_after = 512kb (64*8kb), tps = 11098.702707 > 3) backend_flush_after = 1MB (128*8kb), tps = 11434.964545 > 4) backend_flush_after = 2MB (256*8kb), tps = 13477.089417 So even at 2MB we don't come close to recovering all of the lost performance. Can you please test these three scenarios? 1. Default settings for *_flush_after 2. backend_flush_after=0, rest defaults 3. backend_flush_after=0, bgwriter_flush_after=0, wal_writer_flush_after=0, checkpoint_flush_after=0 -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: