| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Ashutosh Sharma <ashu(dot)coek88(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Mithun Cy <mithun(dot)cy(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Perf Benchmarking and regression. |
| Date: | 2016-05-13 14:20:04 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZzW-SPsMeEL+D08NAvzZoWGSDqrz8X2-=oOVC9i-EWsQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 7:08 AM, Ashutosh Sharma <ashu(dot)coek88(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Following are the performance results for read write test observed with
> different numbers of "backend_flush_after".
>
> 1) backend_flush_after = 256kb (32*8kb), tps = 10841.178815
> 2) backend_flush_after = 512kb (64*8kb), tps = 11098.702707
> 3) backend_flush_after = 1MB (128*8kb), tps = 11434.964545
> 4) backend_flush_after = 2MB (256*8kb), tps = 13477.089417
So even at 2MB we don't come close to recovering all of the lost
performance. Can you please test these three scenarios?
1. Default settings for *_flush_after
2. backend_flush_after=0, rest defaults
3. backend_flush_after=0, bgwriter_flush_after=0,
wal_writer_flush_after=0, checkpoint_flush_after=0
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2016-05-13 14:42:50 | Re: Lets (not) break all the things. Was: [pgsql-advocacy] 9.6 -> 10.0 |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2016-05-13 14:14:40 | Re: Postgres_fdw join pushdown - getting server crash in left outer join of three table |