From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, maryedie(at)osdl(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Mark Wong <markw(at)osdl(dot)org>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: data on devel code perf dip |
Date: | 2005-08-12 01:44:53 |
Message-ID: | 200508120144.j7C1irp26488@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> writes:
> > In light of this, may I ask whether it makes sense to compare the
> > performance of two runs with similar shared_buffer settings? With
> > O_DIRECT, I understand from this manpage that the OS is going to do
> > little or no page caching, so shared_buffers should be increased to
> > account for this fact.
>
> > Am I missing something?
>
> O_DIRECT is only being used for WAL page writes (or I sure hope so
> anyway), so shared_buffers should be irrelevant.
Uh, O_DIRECT really just enables when open_sync is used, and I assume
that is not used for writing dirty buffers during a checkpoint.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | ITAGAKI Takahiro | 2005-08-12 01:47:45 | Why do index access methods use LP_DELETE? |
Previous Message | Andrew - Supernews | 2005-08-12 01:44:18 | Re: data on devel code perf dip |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2005-08-12 02:01:21 | Re: data on devel code perf dip |
Previous Message | Andrew - Supernews | 2005-08-12 01:44:18 | Re: data on devel code perf dip |