| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com>, Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Speed up Clog Access by increasing CLOG buffers |
| Date: | 2016-09-28 23:59:57 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoaKi1GDLpBTBBv+jQ0uizu4nev_7iU_9z1i76gNd9Mo8g@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 6:45 PM, Tomas Vondra
<tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> So, is 300 too little? I don't think so, because Dilip saw some benefit from
> that. Or what scale factor do we think is needed to reproduce the benefit?
> My machine has 256GB of ram, so I can easily go up to 15000 and still keep
> everything in RAM. But is it worth it?
Dunno. But it might be worth a test or two at, say, 5000, just to see
if that makes any difference.
I feel like we must be missing something here. If Dilip is seeing
huge speedups and you're seeing nothing, something is different, and
we don't know what it is. Even if the test case is artificial, it
ought to be the same when one of you runs it as when the other runs
it. Right?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2016-09-29 00:34:01 | Re: Hash Indexes |
| Previous Message | Craig Ringer | 2016-09-28 23:52:18 | Re: Transaction user id through logical decoding |