From: | "MauMau" <maumau307(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Andres Freund" <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Heikki Linnakangas" <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Do you know the reason for increased max latency due to xlog scaling? |
Date: | 2014-02-17 16:35:52 |
Message-ID: | 75E03D4179B24D749DB22D6E5FEBD07C@maumau |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
From: "Andres Freund" <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
> On 2014-02-18 00:43:54 +0900, MauMau wrote:
>> I'm worried about the big increase in max latency. Do you know the
>> cause?
>> More frequent checkpoints caused by increased WAL volume thanks to
>> enhanced
>> performance?
>
> I don't see much evidence of increased latency there? You can't really
> compare the latency when the throughput is significantly different.
For example, please see the max latencies of test set 2 (PG 9.3) and test
set 4 (xlog scaling with padding). They are 207.359 and 1219.422
respectively. The throughput is of course greatly improved, but I think the
response time should not be sacrificed as much as possible. There are some
users who are sensitive to max latency, such as stock exchange and online
games.
>> Although I'm not sure this is related to what I'm asking, the following
>> code
>> fragment in WALInsertSlotAcquireOne() catched my eyes. Shouldn't the if
>> condition be "slotno == -1" instead of "!="? I thought this part wants
>> to
>> make inserters to use another slot on the next insertion, when they fail
>> to
>> acquire the slot immediately. Inserters pass slotno == -1. I'm sorry if
>> I
>> misunderstood the code.
>
> I think you're right.
Thanks for your confirmation. I'd be glad if the fix could bring any
positive impact on max latency.
Regards
MauMau
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2014-02-17 16:39:20 | Re: Decimal values in |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2014-02-17 16:33:51 | Re: Auto-tuning work_mem and maintenance_work_mem |