On Wednesday, January 09, 2013 4:57 PM Simon Riggs wrote:
> On 9 January 2013 08:05, Amit kapila <amit.kapila@huawei.com> wrote:
>
> > Update patch contains handling of below Comments
>
> Thanks
>
>
> > Test results with modified pgbench (1800 record size) on the latest
> patch:
> >
> > -Patch- -tps@-c1- -WAL@-c1- -tps@-c2- -
> WAL@-c2-
> > Head 831 4.17 GB 1416 7.13
> GB
> > WAL modification 846 2.36 GB 1712 3.31
> GB
> >
> > -Patch- -tps@-c4- -WAL@-c4- -tps@-c8- -
> WAL@-c8-
> > Head 2196 11.01 GB 2758 13.88
> GB
> > WAL modification 3295 5.87 GB 5472 9.02
> GB
>
> And test results on normal pgbench?
As there was no gain for original pgbench as was shown in performance
readings, so I thought it is not mandatory.
However I shall run for normal pgbench as it should not lead any further dip
in normal pgbench.
Thanks for pointing.
With Regards,
Amit Kapila.