On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 07:40:46PM +0530, Rahila Syed wrote:
> The tests ran for around 30 mins.Manual checkpoint was run before each test.
>
> Compression WAL generated %compression Latency-avg CPU usage
> (seconds) TPS Latency
> stddev
>
>
> on 1531.4 MB ~35 % 7.351 ms
> user diff: 562.67s system diff: 41.40s 135.96
> 13.759 ms
>
>
> off 2373.1 MB 6.781 ms
> user diff: 354.20s system diff: 39.67s 147.40
> 14.152 ms
>
> The compression obtained is quite high close to 35 %.
> CPU usage at user level when compression is on is quite noticeably high as
> compared to that when compression is off. But gain in terms of reduction of WAL
> is also high.
I am sorry but I can't understand the above results due to wrapping.
Are you saying compression was twice as slow?
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ Everyone has their own god. +
