On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 10:04 AM, Fujii Masao <masao.fu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 1:27 PM, KONDO Mitsumasa > <kondo.mitsum...@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote: >> Hi Fujii-san, >> >> >> (2013/09/30 12:49), Fujii Masao wrote: >>> On second thought, the patch could compress WAL very much because I used >>> pgbench. >>> >>> I will do the same measurement by using another benchmark. >> >> If you hope, I can test this patch in DBT-2 benchmark in end of this week. >> I will use under following test server. >> >> * Test server >> Server: HP Proliant DL360 G7 >> CPU: Xeon E5640 2.66GHz (1P/4C) >> Memory: 18GB(PC3-10600R-9) >> Disk: 146GB(15k)*4 RAID1+0 >> RAID controller: P410i/256MB > > Yep, please! It's really helpful!
I think it will be useful if you can get the data for 1 and 2 threads (may be with pgbench itself) as well, because the WAL reduction is almost sure, but the only thing is that it should not dip tps in some of the scenarios. With Regards, Amit Kapila. EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
