From: Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com>
To: josh@agliodbs.com
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: wal_buffer tests in
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 23:00:55 +0100
Message-ID: <1122501655.3670.204.camel@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200507271330.02083.josh@agliodbs.com>
References: <200507271330.02083.josh@agliodbs.com>
On Wed, 2005-07-27 at 13:30 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> I ran a wal_buffer test series. It appears that increasing the
> wal_buffers is indeed very important for OLTP applications, potentially
> resulting in as much as a 15% average increase in transaction processing.
> What's interesting is that this is not just true for 8.1, it's true for
> 8.0.3 as well.
The most important thing about these tests is that for the first time we
have eliminated much of the post checkpoint noise-and-delay.
Look at the response time charts between
http://khack.osdl.org/stp/302959/results/0/rt.html
and
http://khack.osdl.org/stp/302963/results/0/rt.html
This last set of results is a thing of beauty and I must congratulate
everybody involved for getting here after much effort.
The graphs are smooth, which shows a balanced machine. I'd like to
repeat test 302963 with full_page_writes=false, to see if those response
time spikes at checkpoint drop down to normal level.
I think these results are valid for large DW data loads also.
Best Regards, Simon Riggs
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: simon@2ndquadrant.com, josh@agliodbs.com, pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: wal_buffer tests in
In-Reply-To: <1122501655.3670.204.camel@localhost.localdomain>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox