On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 7:32 PM, Tsunakawa, Takayuki <tsunakawa.ta...@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote: > From: Thomas Munro [mailto:thomas.mu...@enterprisedb.com] >> > huge_pages=off: 70412 tps >> > huge_pages=on : 72100 tps >> >> Hmm. I guess it could be noise or random code rearrangement effects. > > I'm not the difference was a random noise, because running multiple set of > three runs of pgbench (huge_pages = on, off, on, off, on...) produced similar > results. But I expected a bit greater improvement, say, +10%. There may be > better benchmark model where the large page stands out, but I think pgbench > is not so bad because its random data access would cause TLB cache misses.
Your ~2.4% number is similar to what was reported for Linux with 4GB shared_buffers: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20130913234125.GC13697%40roobarb.crazydogs.org Later in that thread there was a report of a dramatic ~15% increase in "best result" TPS, but that was with 60GB of shared_buffers on a machine with 256GB of RAM: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20131024060313.GA21888%40toroid.org -- Thomas Munro http://www.enterprisedb.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
