On 8/8/07, Merlin Moncure <mmoncure@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/7/07, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
> > 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
>
> Here are some more results...all stock except for partial writes, 24
> segments (fsync on). hardware is four 15k sas in a raid 10. I am
> seeing very good results in other real wold scenarios outside of
> pgbench....anyone is interested drop me a line. Note I cut the
> transaction runs down to 100k from 1M.
>
> *** HOT ***
> [postgres@efsd-main root]$ time pgbench -c 5 -t 100000
> starting vacuum...end.
> transaction type: TPC-B (sort of)
> scaling factor: 10
> number of clients: 5
> number of transactions per client: 100000
> number of transactions actually processed: 500000/500000
> tps = 1156.605130 (including connections establishing)
> tps = 1156.637464 (excluding connections establishing)
>
> real 7m12.311s
> user 0m26.784s
> sys 0m25.429s
>
> *** cvs, HOT ***
> [postgres@efsd-main pgsql]$ time pgbench -c 5 -t 100000
> starting vacuum...end.
> transaction type: TPC-B (sort of)
> scaling factor: 10
> number of clients: 5
> number of transactions per client: 100000
> number of transactions actually processed: 500000/500000
> tps = 630.510918 (including connections establishing)
> tps = 630.520485 (excluding connections establishing)
>
> real 13m13.019s
> user 0m27.278s
> sys 0m26.092s
oops! second case was w/o HOT patch applied (but we knew that) :D
merlin
