RE: [Patch] Optimize dropping of relation buffers using dlist
От | tsunakawa.takay@fujitsu.com |
---|---|
Тема | RE: [Patch] Optimize dropping of relation buffers using dlist |
Дата | |
Msg-id | TYAPR01MB2990FF07F510D65DC1B6570BFE360@TYAPR01MB2990.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | RE: [Patch] Optimize dropping of relation buffers using dlist ("k.jamison@fujitsu.com" <k.jamison@fujitsu.com>) |
Ответы |
RE: [Patch] Optimize dropping of relation buffers using dlist
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
From: Jamison, Kirk/ジャミソン カーク <k.jamison@fujitsu.com> > [Results] > Recovery/Failover performance (in seconds). 3 trial runs. > > | shared_buffers | master | patch | %reg | > |----------------|--------|--------|---------| > | 128MB | 32.406 | 33.785 | 4.08% | > | 1GB | 36.188 | 32.747 | -10.51% | > | 2GB | 41.996 | 32.88 | -27.73% | Thanks for sharing good results. We want to know if we can get as significant results as you gained before with hundredsof GBs of shared buffers, don't we? > I also did similar benchmark performance as what Tomas did [1], simple > "pgbench -S" tests (warmup and then 15 x 1-minute runs with 1, 8 and 16 > clients, but I'm not sure if my machine is reliable enough to produce reliable > results for 8 clients and more. Let me confirm just in case. Your patch should not affect pgbench performance, but you measured it. Is there anything you'reconcerned about? Regards Takayuki Tsunakawa
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: