Re: Perf Benchmarking and regression.
От | Ashutosh Sharma |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Perf Benchmarking and regression. |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAE9k0P=5Gzsp3yLVHEz=-t1JEPqPKzxgR29rQjAa-wU8+dhQ3A@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Perf Benchmarking and regression. (Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>) |
Ответы |
Re: Perf Benchmarking and regression.
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
<div dir="ltr">Hi,<br /><br />Following are the performance results for read write test observed with different numbers of"<b>backend_flush_after</b>".<br /><br />1) backend_flush_after = <b>256kb</b> (32*8kb), tps = <b>10841.178815</b><br />2)backend_flush_after = <b>512kb</b> (64*8kb), tps = <b>11098.702707</b><br />3) backend_flush_after = <b>1MB</b> (128*8kb),tps = <b>11434.964545</b><br />4) backend_flush_after = <b>2MB</b> (256*8kb), tps = <b>13477.089417</b><br /><br/><br /><b>Note:</b> Above test has been performed on Unpatched master with default values for checkpoint_flush_after,bgwriter_flush_after<br />and wal_writer_flush_after. <br /><br />With Regards,<br />Ashutosh Sharma<br/>EnterpriseDB:<u> <a href="http://www.enterprisedb.com">http://www.enterprisedb.com</a></u><br /></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br/><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 9:20 PM, Andres Freund <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:andres@anarazel.de"target="_blank">andres@anarazel.de</a>></span> wrote:<br /><blockquote class="gmail_quote"style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class="">On 2016-05-12 11:27:31-0400, Robert Haas wrote:<br /> > On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 11:13 AM, Andres Freund <<a href="mailto:andres@anarazel.de">andres@anarazel.de</a>>wrote:<br /> > > Could you run this one with a number ofdifferent backend_flush_after<br /> > > settings? I'm suspsecting the primary issue is that the default is too low.<br/> ><br /> > What values do you think would be good to test? Maybe provide 3 or 4<br /> > suggested valuesto try?<br /><br /></span>0 (disabled), 16 (current default), 32, 64, 128, 256?<br /><br /> I'm suspecting that onlybackend_flush_after_* has these negative<br /> performance implications at this point. One path is to increase that<br/> option's default value, another is to disable only backend guided<br /> flushing. And add a strong hint that ifyou care about predictable<br /> throughput you might want to enable it.<br /><br /> Greetings,<br /><br /> Andres Freund<br/></blockquote></div><br /></div>
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: