Re: Perf Benchmarking and regression.

Hi,

Please find the results for the following 3 scenarios with unpatched master:

1. Default settings for *_flush_after : TPS = *10677.662356*
2. backend_flush_after=0, rest defaults : TPS = *18452.655936*
3. backend_flush_after=0, bgwriter_flush_after=0,
wal_writer_flush_after=0, checkpoint_flush_after=0 : TPS = *18614.479962*

With Regards,
Ashutosh Sharma
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com

On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 7:50 PM, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:

> 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
>