On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 7:05 AM, Dilip Kumar <dilipbal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 11:44 AM, Dilip Kumar <dilipbal...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> By looking at the results with scale factor 1000 and 100 i don't see any >> reason why it will regress with scale factor 300. >> >> So I will run the test again with scale factor 300 and this time i am >> planning to run 2 cases. >> 1. when data fits in shared buffer >> 2. when data doesn't fit in shared buffer. >> > > I have run the test again with 300 S.F and found no regression, in fact > there is improvement with the patch like we saw with 1000 scale factor. > > Shared Buffer= 8GB > max_connections=150 > Scale Factor=300 > > ./pgbench -j$ -c$ -T300 -M prepared -S postgres > > Client Base Patch > 1 19744 19382 > 8 125923 126395 > 32 313931 333351 > 64 387339 496830 > 128 306412 350610 > > Shared Buffer= 512MB > max_connections=150 > Scale Factor=300 > > ./pgbench -j$ -c$ -T300 -M prepared -S postgres > > Client Base Patch > 1 17169 16454 > 8 108547 105559 > 32 241619 262818 > 64 206868 233606 > 128 137084 217013 > Great, thanks! ------ Alexander Korotkov Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com The Russian Postgres Company
