| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [Proposal] Fully WAL logged CREATE DATABASE - No Checkpoints |
| Date: | 2022-02-13 16:26:07 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoYM_wS_4_gXmue=FeU_ut6WLRS5kDN8t8=q1C+hvRHY8g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, Feb 13, 2022 at 1:34 AM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> wrot>
> test4:
> 32 GB shared buffers, template DB size = 10GB, dirty shared buffer=70%
> Head: 47656 ms
> Patch: 79767 ms
This seems like the most surprising result of the bunch. Here, the
template DB is both small enough to fit in shared_buffers and small
enough not to trigger a checkpoint all by itself, and yet the patch
loses.
Did you checkpoint between one test and the next, or might this test
have been done after a bunch of WAL had already been written since the
last checkpoint so that the 10GB pushed it over the edge?
BTW, you have test4 twice in your list of results.
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2022-02-13 16:39:33 | Re: Adding CI to our tree |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2022-02-13 16:13:51 | Re: pgsql: Add suport for server-side LZ4 base backup compression. |