From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Compression of full-page-writes |
Date: | 2013-10-08 09:49:11 |
Message-ID: | 20131008094911.GB3698093@alap2.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2013-09-11 12:43:21 +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
> On 2013-09-11 19:39:14 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
> > * Benchmark
> > pgbench -c 32 -j 4 -T 900 -M prepared
> > scaling factor: 100
> >
> > checkpoint_segments = 1024
> > checkpoint_timeout = 5min
> > (every checkpoint during benchmark were triggered by checkpoint_timeout)
> >
> > * Result
> > [tps]
> > 1344.2 (full_page_writes = on)
> > 1605.9 (compress)
> > 1810.1 (off)
> >
> > [the amount of WAL generated during running pgbench]
> > 4422 MB (on)
> > 1517 MB (compress)
> > 885 MB (off)
> >
> > [time required to replay WAL generated during running pgbench]
> > 61s (on) .... 1209911 transactions were replayed,
> > recovery speed: 19834.6 transactions/sec
> > 39s (compress) .... 1445446 transactions were replayed,
> > recovery speed: 37062.7 transactions/sec
> > 37s (off) .... 1629235 transactions were replayed,
> > recovery speed: 44033.3 transactions/sec
>
> ISTM for those benchmarks you should use an absolute number of
> transactions, not one based on elapsed time. Otherwise the comparison
> isn't really meaningful.
I really think we need to see recovery time benchmarks with a constant
amount of transactions to judge this properly.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | KONDO Mitsumasa | 2013-10-08 09:51:34 | Re: Compression of full-page-writes |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2013-10-08 09:46:10 | Re: Patch for fail-back without fresh backup |