On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 1:55 PM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 10:04 AM, Fujii Masao <masao.fujii@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 1:27 PM, KONDO Mitsumasa
>> <kondo.mitsumasa@lab.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
>>> Hi Fujii-san,
>>>
>>>
>>> (2013/09/30 12:49), Fujii Masao wrote:
>>>> On second thought, the patch could compress WAL very much because I used
>>>> pgbench.
>>>>
>>>> I will do the same measurement by using another benchmark.
>>>
>>> If you hope, I can test this patch in DBT-2 benchmark in end of this week.
>>> I will use under following test server.
>>>
>>> * Test server
>>> Server: HP Proliant DL360 G7
>>> CPU: Xeon E5640 2.66GHz (1P/4C)
>>> Memory: 18GB(PC3-10600R-9)
>>> Disk: 146GB(15k)*4 RAID1+0
>>> RAID controller: P410i/256MB
>>
>> Yep, please! It's really helpful!
>
> I think it will be useful if you can get the data for 1 and 2 threads
> (may be with pgbench itself) as well, because the WAL reduction is
> almost sure, but the only thing is that it should not dip tps in some
> of the scenarios.
Here is the measurement result of pgbench with 1 thread.
scaling factor: 100
query mode: prepared
number of clients: 1
number of threads: 1
duration: 900 s
WAL Volume
- 1344 MB (full_page_writes = on)
- 349 MB (compress)
- 78 MB (off)
TPS
117.369221 (on)
143.908024 (compress)
163.722063 (off)
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
