Thank you very much for the testing on the nice machine. At Fri, 18 Nov 2016 20:35:43 -0800, Michael Paquier <michael.paqu...@gmail.com> wrote in <CAB7nPqRa=igqmcx+fxbfwj0tzhlu2te+yong7qavz+1npm-...@mail.gmail.com> > On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 7:00 PM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Okay, I have done some performance tests with this patch and found that it > > doesn't have any noticeable impact which is good. Details of performance > > tests is below: > > Machine configuration: > > 2 sockets, 28 cores (56 including Hyper-Threading) > > RAM = 64GB > > Data directory is configured on the magnetic disk and WAL on SSD. > > Nice spec!
This spec seems enough to see the performance of this patch. > > The conclusion from my tests is that this patch is okay as far as > > performance is concerned. > > Thank you a lot for doing those additional tests! So, all my original concern were cleared. The last one is resetting by a checkpointer restart.. I'd like to remove that if Andres agrees. regards, -- Kyotaro Horiguchi NTT Open Source Software Center -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
