From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Schmidt, Peter" <peter(dot)schmidt(at)prismedia(dot)com> |
Cc: | "'Tom Lane'" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "'Michael Ansley'" <Michael(dot)Ansley(at)intec-telecom-systems(dot)com>, "'pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org'" <pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: v7.1b4 bad performance |
Date: | 2001-02-17 04:11:37 |
Message-ID: | 200102170411.XAA01692@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-admin pgsql-hackers |
> I get ~50 tps for any commit_delay value > 0. I've tried many values in the
> range 0 - 999, and always get ~50 tps. commit_delay=0 always gets me ~200+
> tps.
>
> Yes, I have tried multiple clients but got stuck on the glaring difference
> between versions with a single client. The tests that I ran showed the same
> kind of results you got earlier today i.e. 1 client/1000 transactions = 10
> clients/100 transactions.
>
> So, is it OK to use commit_delay=0?
commit_delay was designed to provide better performance in multi-user
workloads. If you are going to use it with only a single backend, you
certainly should set it to zero. If you will have multiple backends
committing at the same time, we are not sure if 5 or 0 is the right
value. If multi-user benchmark shows 0 is faster, we may change the
default.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Schmidt, Peter | 2001-02-17 04:17:19 | RE: v7.1b4 bad performance |
Previous Message | Schmidt, Peter | 2001-02-17 03:54:45 | RE: v7.1b4 bad performance |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2001-02-17 04:43:29 | Re: v7.1b4 bad performance |
Previous Message | Schmidt, Peter | 2001-02-17 03:54:45 | RE: v7.1b4 bad performance |