From: | Takashi Menjo <takashi(dot)menjo(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Konstantin Knizhnik <k(dot)knizhnik(at)postgrespro(dot)ru> |
Cc: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Masahiko Sawada <sawada(dot)mshk(at)gmail(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, "tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)fujitsu(dot)com" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)fujitsu(dot)com>, Takashi Menjo <takashi(dot)menjou(dot)vg(at)hco(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp>, "Deng, Gang" <gang(dot)deng(at)intel(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [PoC] Non-volatile WAL buffer |
Date: | 2021-02-24 02:03:29 |
Message-ID: | CAOwnP3PfwyFz8sTth-94+SMfo2mW9qndT2ZLUu8sKswn4zNU5w@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
I had a performance test in another environment. The steps, setup,
and postgresql.conf of the test are same as the ones sent by me on
Feb 17 [1], except the following items:
# Setup
- Distro: Red Hat Enterprise Linux release 8.2 (Ootpa)
- C compiler: gcc-8.3.1-5.el8.x86_64
- libc: glibc-2.28-101.el8.x86_64
- Linux kernel: kernel-4.18.0-193.el8.x86_64
- PMDK: libpmem-1.6.1-1.el8.x86_64, libpmem-devel-1.6.1-1.el8.x86_64
See the attached figure for the results. In short, the v5 non-volatile
WAL buffer got better performance than the original (non-patched) one.
Regards,
--
Takashi Menjo <takashi(dot)menjo(at)gmail(dot)com>
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
image/png | 43.7 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | tsunakawa.takay@fujitsu.com | 2021-02-24 02:25:36 | RE: libpq debug log |
Previous Message | kuroda.hayato@fujitsu.com | 2021-02-24 01:42:57 | Refactor ECPGconnect and allow IPv6 connection |