On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 7:26 AM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 1:13 AM, Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > >> On 2016-04-09 22:38:31 +0300, Alexander Korotkov wrote: >> > There are results with 5364b357 reverted. >> >> > What exactly is this test? > I think assuming it is a read-only -M prepared pgbench run where data fits > in shared buffers. However if you can share exact details, then I can try > the similar test. > Yes, the test is: pgbench -s 1000 -c $clients -j 100 -M prepared -S -T 300 (shared_buffers=24GB) > >> Crazy that this has such a negative impact. Amit, can you reproduce >> that? > > > I will try it. > Good. > > >> Alexander, I guess for r/w workload 5364b357 is a benefit on that >> machine as well? >> > > I also think so. Alexander, if try read-write workload with unlogged > tables, then we should see an improvement. > I'll try read-write workload. ------ Alexander Korotkov Postgres Professional: http://www.postgrespro.com The Russian Postgres Company
