From: | Manfred Spraul <manfred(at)colorfullife(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Mark Kirkwood <markir(at)paradise(dot)net(dot)nz>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] fsync method checking |
Date: | 2003-12-12 20:54:34 |
Message-ID: | 3FDA2B0A.1060709@colorfullife.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-performance |
Bruce Momjian wrote:
> write 0.000360
> write & fsync 0.001391
> write, close & fsync 0.001308
> open o_fsync, write 0.000924
>
>
That's 1 milliseconds vs. 1.3 milliseconds. Neither value is realistic -
I guess the hw cache on and the os doesn't issue cache flush commands.
Realistic values are probably 5 ms vs 5.3 ms - 6%, not 30%. How large is
the syscall latency with BSD/OS 4.3?
One advantage of a seperate write and fsync call is better performance
for the writes that are triggered within AdvanceXLInsertBuffer: I'm not
sure how often that's necessary, but it's a write while holding both the
WALWriteLock and WALInsertLock. If every write contains an implicit
sync, that call would be much more expensive than necessary.
--
Manfred
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Matthew T. O'Connor | 2003-12-12 20:59:04 | Re: Resurrecting pg_upgrade |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-12-12 20:42:56 | Re: Resurrecting pg_upgrade |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Mark Kirkwood | 2003-12-12 21:11:29 | Re: Performance related to size of tables |
Previous Message | nbarraza | 2003-12-12 18:04:49 | Performance related to size of tables |