Re: Performance Improvement by reducing WAL for Update Operation - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

On Wednesday, January 09, 2013 4:57 PM Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 9 January 2013 08:05, Amit kapila <amit.kapila@huawei.com> wrote:
> 
> > Update patch contains handling of below Comments
> 
> Thanks
> 
> 
> > Test results with modified pgbench (1800 record size) on the latest
> patch:
> >
> > -Patch-             -tps@-c1-     -WAL@-c1-      -tps@-c2-      -
> WAL@-c2-
> > Head                831           4.17 GB        1416           7.13
> GB
> > WAL modification    846           2.36 GB        1712           3.31
> GB
> >
> > -Patch-             -tps@-c4-     -WAL@-c4-      -tps@-c8-      -
> WAL@-c8-
> > Head                2196          11.01 GB       2758           13.88
> GB
> > WAL modification    3295           5.87 GB       5472            9.02
> GB
> 
> And test results on normal pgbench?

As there was no gain for original pgbench as was shown in performance
readings, so I thought it is not mandatory.
However I shall run for normal pgbench as it should not lead any further dip
in normal pgbench.
Thanks for pointing.

With Regards,
Amit Kapila.