Re: HOT pgbench results
| От | Merlin Moncure |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: HOT pgbench results |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | b42b73150708141825o7405e423hb74d222be788aedb@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: HOT pgbench results (ITAGAKI Takahiro <itagaki.takahiro@oss.ntt.co.jp>) |
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 8/14/07, ITAGAKI Takahiro <itagaki.takahiro@oss.ntt.co.jp> wrote: > Heikki Linnakangas <heikki@enterprisedb.com> wrote: > > > I ran some CPU intensive pgbench tests on HOT. Results are not > > surprising, HOT makes practically no difference on the total transaction > > rate, but reduces the need to vacuum: > > > > unpatched HOT > > tps 3680 3790 > > WAL written(MB) 5386 4804 > > checkpoints 10 9 > > autovacuums 116 43 > > autoanalyzes 139 60 > > I also ran pgbench with/without HOT using a bit different configurations > (pgbench -s10 -c10 -t500000). There were 10% performance win on HOT, > although the test was CPU intensive and with FILLFACTOR=100%. I'm curious why I am seeing results so different from everybody else (I had almost double tps with HOT). Are you running fsync on/off? Any other changes to postgresql.conf? merlin
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: