| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Rahila Syed <rahilasyed90(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [REVIEW] Re: Compression of full-page-writes |
| Date: | 2014-12-10 14:25:05 |
| Message-ID: | 20141210142505.GA16215@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 07:40:46PM +0530, Rahila Syed wrote:
> The tests ran for around 30 mins.Manual checkpoint was run before each test.
>
> Compression WAL generated %compression Latency-avg CPU usage
> (seconds) TPS Latency
> stddev
>
>
> on 1531.4 MB ~35 % 7.351 ms
> user diff: 562.67s system diff: 41.40s 135.96
> 13.759 ms
>
>
> off 2373.1 MB 6.781 ms
> user diff: 354.20s system diff: 39.67s 147.40
> 14.152 ms
>
> The compression obtained is quite high close to 35 %.
> CPU usage at user level when compression is on is quite noticeably high as
> compared to that when compression is off. But gain in terms of reduction of WAL
> is also high.
I am sorry but I can't understand the above results due to wrapping.
Are you saying compression was twice as slow?
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ Everyone has their own god. +
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2014-12-10 14:25:14 | Re: logical column ordering |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2014-12-10 14:22:25 | Re: On partitioning |