From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Justin Clift <aa2(at)bigpond(dot)net(dot)au> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Allowing WAL fsync to be done via O_SYNC |
Date: | 2001-03-16 00:56:34 |
Message-ID: | 200103160056.TAA01754@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> <snip>
> > No one will ever do the proper timing tests to know which is better except us.
>
> Hi Bruce,
>
> I believe in the future that anyone doing serious benchmark tests before
> large-scale implementation will indeed be testing things like this.
> There will also be people/companies out there who will specialize in
> "tuning" PostgreSQL systems and they will definitely test stuff like
> this... different variations, different database structures, different
> OS's, etc.
But I don't want to go the Informix/Oracle way where we have so many
tuning options that no one understands them all. I would like us to
find the best options and only give users choices when there is a real
tradeoff.
For example, Tom had a nice fsync test program. Why can't we run that
on various platforms and collect the results, then make a decision on
the best default.
Trying to test the affects of fsync() with a database wrapped around it
really makes for difficult measurement anyway.
--
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 | Justin Clift | 2001-03-16 01:02:39 | Testing structure (was) Re: Allowing WAL fsync to be done via O_SYNC |
Previous Message | Alfred Perlstein | 2001-03-16 00:55:19 | Re: Performance monitor signal handler |