Re: [HACKERS] pgbench: faster version of tpcb-like transaction
| От | Jeff Janes |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: [HACKERS] pgbench: faster version of tpcb-like transaction |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CAMkU=1ytyy1yD0niHH0k0u-xd9EXs-Bi+Q2CgBT7LO4ZSrVqAQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] pgbench: faster version of tpcb-like transaction (Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie>) |
| Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] pgbench: faster version of tpcb-like transaction
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Sat, Aug 26, 2017 at 4:28 PM, Peter Geoghegan <pg@bowt.ie> wrote:
On Sat, Aug 26, 2017 at 3:53 PM, Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com> wrote:
> I get nearly a 3 fold speed up using the new transaction, from 9184 to 26383
> TPS, on 8 CPU machine using scale 50 and:
>
> PGOPTIONS="-c synchronous_commit=off" pgbench -c32 -j32 -T60 -b tpcb-like
What about with "-M prepared"? I think that most of us use that
setting already, especially with CPU-bound workloads.
I still get a 2 fold improvement, from 13668 to 27036, when both transactions are tested with -M prepared.
I am surprised, I usually haven't seen that much difference for the default queries between prepared or not, to the point that I got out of the habit of testing with it. But back when I was testing with and without systematically, I did notice that it changed a lot depending on hardware and concurrency. And of course from version to version different bottlenecks come and go.
And thanks to Tom for letting me put -M at the end of the command line now.
Cheers,
Jeff
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: