From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
Cc: | Christian Kruse <christian(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Wait free LW_SHARED acquisition |
Date: | 2014-02-04 22:45:30 |
Message-ID: | 20140204224530.GJ32407@alap3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2014-02-04 13:42:51 -0800, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 12:30 PM, Christian Kruse
> <christian(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> > Ok, benchmark for baseline+alignment patch is running.
>
> I see that you have enabled latency information. For this kind of
> thing I prefer to hack pgbench-tools to not collect this (i.e. to not
> pass the "-l" flag, "Per-Transaction Logging"). Just remove it and
> pgbench-tools rolls with it. It may well be that the overhead added is
> completely insignificant, but for something like this, where the
> latency information is unlikely to add any value, I prefer to not take
> the chance. This is a fairly minor point, however, especially since
> these are only 60 second runs where you're unlikely to accumulate
> enough transaction latency information to notice any effect.
Hm, I don't find that convincing. If you look at the results from the
last run the latency information is actually quite interesting.
Greetings,
Andres Freund
--
Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2014-02-04 22:47:27 | Re: narwhal and PGDLLIMPORT |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2014-02-04 22:29:54 | Re: narwhal and PGDLLIMPORT |