On 11/09/16 19:16, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
On 11/09/16 17:01, Amit Kapila wrote:
...Do you think we can do some read-only
workload benchmarking using this server? If yes, then probably you
can use concurrent hash index patch [1] and cache the metapage patch
[2] (I think Mithun needs to rebase his patch) to do so.
[1] -
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/caa4ek1j6b8o4pcepqrxnyblvbftonmjeem+qn0jzx31-obx...@mail.gmail.com
[2] -
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/cad__ouhj29cebif_flge4t9vj_-cfxbwcxhjo+d_16txbem...@mail.gmail.com
I can do - are we checking checking for hangs/assertions or comparing
patched vs unpatched performance (for the metapage patch)?
So, assuming the latter - testing performance with and without the
metapage patch:
For my 1st runs:
- cpus 16, ran 16G
- size 100, clients 32
I'm seeing no difference in performance for read only (-S) pgbench
workload (with everybody using has indexes). I guess not that surprising
as the db fites in ram (1.6G and we have 16G). So I'll retry with a
bigger dataset (suspect size 2000 is needed).
regards
Mark
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
