On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 8:14 AM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> While the graph that I produced was about the same shape as yours, the
> underlying hardware was quite different, and indeed with my benchmark
> group commit's benefits are more apparent earlier - at 32 clients,
> throughput has more-than do
On 1 April 2012 06:41, Robert Haas wrote:
> There seem to be too relevant differences between your test and mine:
> (1) your test is just a single insert per transaction, whereas mine is
> pgbench's usual update, select, update, update, insert and (2) it
> seems that, to really see the benefit of
On Saturday, March 31, 2012, Jeff Janes wrote:
> On Saturday, March 31, 2012, Robert Haas wrote:
>> On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 1:40 AM, Jeff Janes wrote:
>
>>> It looks like in your case tps was still scaling with clients when you
gave
>>> up, so clients was probably too small.
>>
>> What is kind of
On Sun, Apr 1, 2012 at 1:40 AM, Jeff Janes wrote:
> On Saturday, March 31, 2012, Robert Haas wrote:
>> Hoping to demonstrate the wonders of our new group commit code, I ran
>> some benchmarks on the IBM POWER7 machine with synchronous_commit =
>> on. But, it didn't come out much better than 9.1.
On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 8:31 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> The exact benchmark that I ran was the update.sql pgbench-tools
> benchmark, on my laptop. The idea was to produce a sympathetic
> benchmark with a workload that was maximally commit-bound. Heikki
> reproduced similar numbers on his laptop,
On Saturday, March 31, 2012, Robert Haas wrote:
> Hoping to demonstrate the wonders of our new group commit code, I ran
> some benchmarks on the IBM POWER7 machine with synchronous_commit =
> on. But, it didn't come out much better than 9.1.
Where I would expect (and have seen) much improvement
On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 8:31 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> Why the low value for wal_writer_delay?
A while back I was getting a benefit from cranking that down. I could
try leaving it out and see if it matters.
>> master:
>> 01 tps = 118.968446 (including connections establishing)
>> 02 tps = 12
On 1 April 2012 01:10, Robert Haas wrote:
> Hoping to demonstrate the wonders of our new group commit code, I ran
> some benchmarks on the IBM POWER7 machine with synchronous_commit =
> on. But, it didn't come out much better than 9.1. pgbench, scale
> factor 300, median of 3 30-minute test runs
Hoping to demonstrate the wonders of our new group commit code, I ran
some benchmarks on the IBM POWER7 machine with synchronous_commit =
on. But, it didn't come out much better than 9.1. pgbench, scale
factor 300, median of 3 30-minute test runs, # clients = #threads,
shared_buffers = 8GB, maint
