From: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Brent Dearth <brent(dot)dearth(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Horrible CREATE DATABASE Performance in High Sierra |
Date: | 2017-10-02 19:56:37 |
Message-ID: | 20171002195637.byjrjb73enz3hys7@alap3.anarazel.de |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 2017-10-02 15:54:43 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> writes:
> > On 2017-10-02 15:42:25 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> I experimented with this further by seeing whether the msync() code path
> >> is of any value on Sierra either. The answer seems to be "no": cloning
> >> a scale-1000 pgbench database takes about 17-18 seconds on my Sierra
> >> laptop using unmodified HEAD, but if I dike out the msync() logic then
> >> it takes 16-17 seconds. Both numbers jump around a little, but using
> >> msync is strictly worse.
>
> > Well, that's only measuring one type of workload. Could you run a normal
> > pgbench with -P1 or so for 2-3 checkpoint cycles and see how big the
> > latency differences are?
>
> Should I expect there to be any difference at all? We don't enable
> *_flush_after by default on non-Linux platforms.
Right, you'd have to enable that. But your patch would neuter an
intentionally enabled config too, no?
Greetings,
Andres Freund
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2017-10-02 19:59:05 | Re: Horrible CREATE DATABASE Performance in High Sierra |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2017-10-02 19:54:43 | Re: Horrible CREATE DATABASE Performance in High Sierra |