On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 7:19 PM, Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> wrote:
> Pavan Deolasee wrote: > > > BTW I wanted to share some more numbers from a recent performance test. I > > thought it's important because the latest patch has fully functional > chain > > conversion code as well as all WAL-logging related pieces are in place > > too. I ran these tests on a box borrowed from Tomas (thanks!). This has > > 64GB RAM and 350GB SSD with 1GB on-board RAM. I used the same test setup > > that I used for the first test results reported on this thread i.e. a > > modified pgbench_accounts table with additional columns and additional > > indexes (one index on abalance so that every UPDATE is a potential WARM > > update). > > > > In a test where table + indexes exceeds RAM, running for 8hrs and > > auto-vacuum parameters set such that we get 2-3 autovacuums on the table > > during the test, we see WARM delivering more than 100% TPS as compared to > > master. In this graph, I've plotted a moving average of TPS and the > spikes > > that we see coincides with the checkpoints (checkpoint_timeout is set to > > 20mins and max_wal_size large enough to avoid any xlog-based > checkpoints). > > The spikes are more prominent on WARM but I guess that's purely because > it > > delivers much higher TPS. I haven't shown here but I see WARM updates > close > > to 65-70% of the total updates. Also there is significant reduction in > WAL > > generated per txn. > > Impressive results. Labels on axes would improve readability of the chart > :-) > > Sorry about that. I was desperately searching for Undo button after hitting "send" for the very same reason :-) Looks like I used gnuplot after a few years. Just to make it clear, the X-axis is duration of tests in seconds and Y-axis is 450s moving average of TPS. BTW 450 is no magic figure. I collected stats every 15s and took a moving average of last 30 samples. Thanks, Pavan -- Pavan Deolasee http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
