Re: Supporting huge pages on Windows

On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 7:32 PM, Tsunakawa, Takayuki
<tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com> wrote:
> From: Thomas Munro [mailto:thomas(dot)munro(at)enterprisedb(dot)com]
>> > huge_pages=off: 70412 tps
>> > huge_pages=on : 72100 tps
>>
>> Hmm. I guess it could be noise or random code rearrangement effects.
>
> I'm not the difference was a random noise, because running multiple set of three runs of pgbench (huge_pages = on, off, on, off, on...) produced similar results. But I expected a bit greater improvement, say, +10%. There may be better benchmark model where the large page stands out, but I think pgbench is not so bad because its random data access would cause TLB cache misses.

Your ~2.4% number is similar to what was reported for Linux with 4GB
shared_buffers:

https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20130913234125.GC13697%40roobarb.crazydogs.org

Later in that thread there was a report of a dramatic ~15% increase in
"best result" TPS, but that was with 60GB of shared_buffers on a
machine with 256GB of RAM:

https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20131024060313.GA21888%40toroid.org

--
Thomas Munro
http://www.enterprisedb.com