From: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org
> [mailto:pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Ashutosh Sharma
> To start with, I ran the regression test-suite and didn't find any failures.
> But, then I am not sure if huge_pages are getting used or not. However,
> upon checking the settings for huge_pages and I found it as 'on'. I am
> assuming, if huge pages is not being used due to shortage of large pages,
> it should have fallen back to non-huge pages.
You are right, the server falls back to non-huge pages when the large pages run short.
> I also ran the pgbench tests on read-only workload and here are the results
> I got.
>
> pgbench -c 4 -j 4 - T 600 bench
>
> huge_pages=on, TPS = 21120.768085
> huge_pages=off, TPS = 20606.288995
Thanks. It's about 2% improvement, which is the same as what I got.
From: Thomas Munro [mailto:thomas.munro@enterprisedb.com]
> The line beginning 'Huge pages are known as...' has been accidentally
> duplicated.
Oops, how careless I was. Fixed. As Ashutosh referred, I added a very simple suggestion to use Windows Group Policy
tool.
Regards
Takayuki Tsunakawa
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
