Hi,
On 2016-05-27 19:57:34 +0300, Vladimir Borodin wrote: > -performance > > Here is how the results look like for 9.4, 9.5 and 9.6. All are built from > > latest commits on yesterday in > > * REL9_4_STABLE (a0cc89a28141595d888d8aba43163d58a1578bfb), > > * REL9_5_STABLE (e504d915bbf352ecfc4ed335af934e799bf01053), > > * master (6ee7fb8244560b7a3f224784b8ad2351107fa55d). > > > > All of them are build on the host where testing is done (with stock gcc > > versions). Sysctls, pgbouncer config and everything we found are the same, > > postgres configs are default, PGDATA is in tmpfs. All numbers are > > reproducible, they are stable between runs. > > > > Shortly: > > > > OS PostgreSQL version TPS Avg. > > latency > > RHEL 6 9.4 44898 > > 1.425 ms > > RHEL 6 9.5 26199 > > 2.443 ms > > RHEL 6 9.5 43027 > > 1.487 ms > > Ubuntu 14.04 9.4 67458 > > 0.949 ms > > Ubuntu 14.04 9.5 64065 > > 0.999 ms > > Ubuntu 14.04 9.6 64350 > > 0.995 ms > > The results above are not really fair, pgbouncer.ini was a bit different on > Ubuntu host (application_name_add_host was disabled). Here are the right > results with exactly the same configuration: > > OS PostgreSQL version TPS Avg. > latency > RHEL 6 9.4 44898 > 1.425 ms > RHEL 6 9.5 26199 > 2.443 ms > RHEL 6 9.5 43027 > 1.487 ms > Ubuntu 14.04 9.4 45971 1.392 ms > Ubuntu 14.04 9.5 40282 1.589 ms > Ubuntu 14.04 9.6 45410 1.409 ms Hm. I'm a bit confused. You show one result for 9.5 with bad and one with good performance. I suspect the second one is supposed to be a 9.6? Am I understanding correctly that the performance near entirely recovered with 9.6? If so, I suspect we might be dealing with a memory alignment issue. Do the 9.5 results change if you increase max_connections by one or two (without changing anything else)? What's the actual hardware? Greetings, Andres Freund -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
