From: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Scaling XLog insertion (was Re: Moving more work outside WALInsertLock) |
Date: | 2012-03-09 10:34:53 |
Message-ID: | CAHGQGwHO9LRDauU4g+HcTe0prnTZVxJNT4zWov=7Ucozf7JTZg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 7:04 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
<heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> Here's an updated patch. It now only loops once per segment that a record
> crosses. Plus a lot of other small cleanup.
Thanks! But you forgot to attach the patch.
> I've been doing some performance testing with this, using a simple C
> function that just inserts a dummy WAL record of given size. I'm not totally
> satisfied. Although the patch helps with scalability at 3-4 concurrent
> backends doing WAL insertions, it seems to slow down the single-client case
> with small WAL records by about 5-10%. This is what Robert also saw with an
> earlier version of the patch
> (http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2011-12/msg01223.php) I
> tested this with the data directory on a RAM drive, unfortunately I don't
> have a server with a hard drive that can sustain the high insertion rate.
> I'll post more detailed results, once I've refined the tests a bit.
I'm also doing performance test. If I get interesting result, I'll post it.
Regards,
--
Fujii Masao
NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE CORPORATION
NTT Open Source Software Center
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Hans-Jürgen Schönig | 2012-03-09 10:42:54 | Re: pg_prewarm |
Previous Message | Fujii Masao | 2012-03-09 10:24:13 | Re: pg_prewarm |