Hi, Please find the results for the following 3 scenarios with unpatched master:
1. Default settings for *_flush_after : TPS = *10677.662356* 2. backend_flush_after=0, rest defaults : TPS = *18452.655936* 3. backend_flush_after=0, bgwriter_flush_after=0, wal_writer_flush_after=0, checkpoint_flush_after=0 : TPS = *18614.479962* With Regards, Ashutosh Sharma EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 7:50 PM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 7:08 AM, Ashutosh Sharma <ashu.coe...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Following are the performance results for read write test observed with > > different numbers of "backend_flush_after". > > > > 1) backend_flush_after = 256kb (32*8kb), tps = 10841.178815 > > 2) backend_flush_after = 512kb (64*8kb), tps = 11098.702707 > > 3) backend_flush_after = 1MB (128*8kb), tps = 11434.964545 > > 4) backend_flush_after = 2MB (256*8kb), tps = 13477.089417 > > So even at 2MB we don't come close to recovering all of the lost > performance. Can you please test these three scenarios? > > 1. Default settings for *_flush_after > 2. backend_flush_after=0, rest defaults > 3. backend_flush_after=0, bgwriter_flush_after=0, > wal_writer_flush_after=0, checkpoint_flush_after=0 > > -- > Robert Haas > EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com > The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company >
