From: | Ron Mayer <rm_pg(at)cheapcomplexdevices(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
Cc: | Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>, Ron Mayer <rm_pg(at)cheapcomplexdevices(dot)com> |
Subject: | Re: Priorities for users or queries? |
Date: | 2007-02-17 01:44:40 |
Message-ID: | 45D65E08.7000306@cheapcomplexdevices.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-admin pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
Magnus Hagander wrote:
> Most likely, you do not want to do this. You *can* do it, but you are
> quite likely to suffer from priority inversion
Papers I've read suggest that the benefits of priorities
vastly outweigh the penalties of priority inversion for
virtually all workloads on most all RDBMs's including
PostgreSQL.
This CMU paper in particular tested PostgreSQL (and DB2)
on TPC-C and TPC-W workloads and found that indirectly
influencing I/O scheduling through CPU priorities
is a big win for postgresql.
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~bianca/icde04.pdf
"For TPC-C running on PostgreSQL,
the simplest CPU scheduling policy (CPU-Prio) provides
a factor of 2 improvement for high-priority transactions,
while adding priority inheritance (CPU-Prio-Inherit)
provides a factor of 6 improvement while hardly
penalizing low-priority transactions."
Have you heard of any workload on any RDBMS where priority inversion
causes more harm than benefit?
Ron Mayer
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2007-02-17 01:52:36 | Re: Priorities for users or queries? |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2007-02-17 00:33:31 | Re: WAL files backup |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2007-02-17 01:52:36 | Re: Priorities for users or queries? |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2007-02-17 01:23:48 | Re: user input during runtime |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2007-02-17 01:52:36 | Re: Priorities for users or queries? |
Previous Message | Ron Mayer | 2007-02-17 01:37:26 | Re: autovacuum next steps |