From: | Mark Kirkwood <markir(at)coretech(dot)co(dot)nz> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: WIP: bufmgr rewrite per recent discussions |
Date: | 2005-02-17 01:05:15 |
Message-ID: | 4213EDCB.4080401@coretech.co.nz |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-patches |
Tom Lane wrote:
> I don't feel this is quite ready to commit, but here it is if anyone
> would like to try some performance testing. Using "pgbench -s 10"
> on a single-CPU machine, I find this code a little slower than CVS tip
> at shared_buffers = 1000, but noticeably faster (~10% speedup) at
> 10000 buffers. So it's not a dead loss for single-CPU anyway. What
> we need now is some performance measurements on multi-CPU boxes.
>
> The bgwriter algorithm probably needs more work, maybe some more GUC
> parameters.
>
Here are some results for a 2xPIII 700Mhz with 2G ram running Freebsd 5.3:
Pgbench: s=10 c=4 t=1000
Pg: wal_buffers=128 checkpoint_segments=10
shared_buffers=1000|10000
3 runs of each combination were averaged. the figure is the tps
including connection time (with range in the brackets).
8.1 CVS
shared_buffers=1000 tps=129 (129-131)
shared_buffers=10000 tps=146 (145-148)
8.1 CVS + buf patch
shared_buffers=1000 tps=135 (131-138)
shared_buffers=10000 tps=154 (154-155)
regards
Mark
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-02-17 01:05:50 | Re: WIP: bufmgr rewrite per recent discussions |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-02-17 00:50:28 | WIP: buffer manager rewrite (take 2) |