From: Thomas Munro [mailto:thomas.mu...@enterprisedb.com] > > huge_pages=off: 70412 tps > > huge_pages=on : 72100 tps > > Hmm. I guess it could be noise or random code rearrangement effects.
I'm not the difference was a random noise, because running multiple set of three runs of pgbench (huge_pages = on, off, on, off, on...) produced similar results. But I expected a bit greater improvement, say, +10%. There may be better benchmark model where the large page stands out, but I think pgbench is not so bad because its random data access would cause TLB cache misses. > I saw your recent post[2] proposing to remove the sentence about the 512MB > effective limit and I wondered why you didn't go to larger sizes with a > larger database and more run time. But I will let others with more > benchmarking experience comment on the best approach to investigate Windows > shared_buffers performance. Yes, I could have gone to 8GB of shared_buffers because my PC has 16GB of RAM, but I felt the number of variations was sufficient. Anyway, positive comments on benchmarking would be appreciated. Regards Takayuki Tsunakawa -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
