| From: | ncm(at)zembu(dot)com (Nathan Myers) | 
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org | 
| Subject: | Re: CommitDelay performance improvement | 
| Date: | 2001-02-24 01:20:46 | 
| Message-ID: | 20010223172046.V624@store.zembu.com | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers | 
On Fri, Feb 23, 2001 at 06:37:06PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > When thinking about tuning N, I like to consider what are the interesting 
> > possible values for N:
> > 
> >   0: Ignore any other potential committers.
> >   1: The minimum possible responsiveness to other committers.
> >   5: Tom's guess for what might be a good choice.
> >   10: Harry's guess.
> >   ~0: Always delay.
> > 
> > I would rather release with N=1 than with 0, because it actually
> > responds to conditions. What N might best be, >1, probably varies on
> > a lot of hard-to-guess parameters.
> >
> > It seems to me that comparing various choices (and other, more
> > interesting, algorithms) to the N=1 case would be more productive
> > than comparing them to the N=0 case, so releasing at N=1 would yield
> > better statistics for actually tuning in 7.2.
>
> We don't release code because it has better tuning opportunities for
> later releases. What we can do is give people parameters where the
> default is safe, and they can play and report to us.
Perhaps I misunderstood.  I had perceived N=1 as a conservative choice
that was nevertheless preferable to N=0.
Nathan Myers
ncm(at)zembu(dot)com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2001-02-24 02:05:20 | Re: CommitDelay performance improvement | 
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2001-02-24 00:12:41 | Re: CommitDelay performance improvement |