Re: Speed up Clog Access by increasing CLOG buffers

From: Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Speed up Clog Access by increasing CLOG buffers
Date: 2016-04-07 15:40:51
Message-ID: CAA4eK1LY5A-Ni1jXvdwcFQCd6CMpLcCmUvwdeApYc2Kh1P0hyw@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 6:48 PM, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> wrote:
>
> On 2016-04-07 18:40:14 +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> > This is the data with -b tpcb-like(at)1 with 20-min run for each version
and I
> > could see almost similar results as the data posted in previous e-mail.
> >
> > Client Count/Patch_ver (tps) 256
> > clog_buf_128 40617
> > clog_buf_128 +group_clog_v8 51137
> > clog_buf_128 +content_lock 54188
> >
> > For -b select-only(at)3, I have done quicktest for each version and
number is
> > same 62K~63K for all version, why do you think this will improve
> > select-only workload?
>
> What I was looking for was pgbench with both -btpcb-like(at)1
> -bselect-only(at)3 specified; i.e. a mixed read/write test.
>

Okay, I can again take the performance data, but on what basis are we
ignoring the variation of results on power m/c, previous to this I have not
seen such a variation for read-write tests.

With Regards,
Amit Kapila.
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jeff Janes 2016-04-07 15:44:00 Re: snapshot too old, configured by time
Previous Message Daniel Verite 2016-04-07 15:40:46 Re: [patch] Proposal for \crosstabview in psql