On 08/07/2015 12:41 AM, Amit Kapila wrote:
On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 9:36 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote:
OK, committed.
Thank you.
Fyi, there is something in pgbench that has caused a testing regression
- havn't tracked down what yet.
Against 9.6 server (846f8c9483a8f31e45bf949db1721706a2765771)
9.6 pgbench:
------------
progress: 10.0 s, 53525.0 tps, lat 1.485 ms stddev 0.523
progress: 20.0 s, 15750.6 tps, lat 5.077 ms stddev 1.950
...
progress: 300.0 s, 15636.9 tps, lat 5.114 ms stddev 1.989
9.5 pgbench:
------------
progress: 10.0 s, 50119.5 tps, lat 1.587 ms stddev 0.576
progress: 20.0 s, 51413.1 tps, lat 1.555 ms stddev 0.553
...
progress: 300.0 s, 52951.6 tps, lat 1.509 ms stddev 0.657
Both done with -c 80 -j 80 -M prepared -P 10 -T 300.
Just thought I would post it in this thread, because this change does
help on the performance numbers compared to 9.5 :)
Best regards,
Jesper
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
