HOT pgbench results - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Heikki Linnakangas
Subject HOT pgbench results
Date
Msg-id 46B86292.6060508@enterprisedb.com
Whole thread Raw
Responses Re: HOT pgbench results  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Re: HOT pgbench results  ("Simon Riggs" <simon@2ndquadrant.com>)
Re: HOT pgbench results  ("Merlin Moncure" <mmoncure@gmail.com>)
Re: HOT pgbench results  (ITAGAKI Takahiro <itagaki.takahiro@oss.ntt.co.jp>)
List pgsql-hackers
I ran some CPU intensive pgbench tests on HOT. Results are not
surprising, HOT makes practically no difference on the total transaction
rate, but reduces the need to vacuum:

        unpatched    HOT
tps        3680        3790
WAL written(MB)    5386        4804
checkpoints    10        9
autovacuums    116        43
autoanalyzes    139        60

I believe the small gain in tps is due to the reduction in WAL volume.
WAL is checksummed, and calculating the CRC uses some CPU. The tps
difference is almost within the margin of error, though.

HOT greatly reduces the number of vacuums needed. That's good, that's
where the gains in throughput in longer I/O bound runs comes from.


The tests were run with fsync=off, with following commands:

pgbench -i -s 10 postgres
pgbench -c 5 -t 1000000 postgres -l

The version used was CVS HEAD, with Simple-HOT-v2.patch applied in the
HOT run. The cluster was initdb'd and created from scratch before each
test run. Attached is the full postgresql.conf and test script used.

--
  Heikki Linnakangas
  EnterpriseDB   http://www.enterprisedb.com

Attachment

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Andrew Dunstan
Date:
Subject: Re: .NET driver
Next
From: "Pavan Deolasee"
Date:
Subject: HOT patch - version 13