| From: | "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Jignesh K(dot) Shah" <J(dot)K(dot)Shah(at)Sun(dot)COM> |
| Cc: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Josh Berkus" <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>, "Alvaro Herrera" <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: CLOG Patch |
| Date: | 2007-08-03 20:29:47 |
| Message-ID: | 1186172987.4136.18.camel@ebony.site |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-performance |
On Fri, 2007-08-03 at 16:09 -0400, Jignesh K. Shah wrote:
> This patch seems to work well (both with 32 and 64 value but not with 16
> and the default 8).
Could you test at 24 please also? Tom has pointed out the additional
cost of setting this higher, even in workloads that don't benefit from
the I/O-induced contention reduction.
> Is there a way we can integrate this in 8.3?
I just replied to Josh's thread on -hackers about this.
> This will improve out of box performance quite a bit for high number of
> users (atleat 30% in my OLTP test)
Yes, thats good. Will this have a dramatic effect on a particular
benchmark, or for what reason might we need this? Tom has questioned the
use case here, so I think it would be good to explain a little more for
everyone. Thanks.
--
Simon Riggs
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Kroeger | 2007-08-03 21:13:27 | Re: Performance problems with large telemetric datasets on 7.4.2 |
| Previous Message | Jignesh K. Shah | 2007-08-03 20:09:39 | CLOG Patch |