From: | Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: WIP patch for latestCompletedXid method of computing snapshot xmax |
Date: | 2007-09-08 21:39:45 |
Message-ID: | 87r6l8x2e6.fsf@oxford.xeocode.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
"Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> My desktop machine has a single consumer-grade IDE drive, and even with
> fsync off and synchronous_commit off, it can barely make 190 tps sustained
> pgbench throughput --- it's just disk write bound all the time. On a run
> with 8 clients, 10000 transactions per client, DB scale factor 25, I get
> this distribution of transaction times from CVS HEAD:
Wouldn't you expect to see more of an effect on cpu-bound environments? Is
there any i/o going on while these locks are being held? I suppose there's a
WAL commit record that has to be synced?
Have you tried with a smaller scale factor?
--
Gregory Stark
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Kenneth Marshall | 2007-09-08 21:49:00 | Re: Hash index todo list item |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-09-08 21:29:34 | Re: WIP patch for latestCompletedXid method of computing snapshot xmax |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Gregory Stark | 2007-09-08 21:51:18 | Re: WIP patch for latestCompletedXid method of computing snapshot xmax |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-09-08 21:29:34 | Re: WIP patch for latestCompletedXid method of computing snapshot xmax |