From: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Christian Kruse <christian(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Wait free LW_SHARED acquisition |
Date: | 2014-02-04 21:42:51 |
Message-ID: | CAM3SWZRnZmzQvKkBZZnRO=ecigG3dkO+uwZ-a-NNLF0yPR0QFg@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 12:30 PM, Christian Kruse
<christian(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
> Ok, benchmark for baseline+alignment patch is running.
I see that you have enabled latency information. For this kind of
thing I prefer to hack pgbench-tools to not collect this (i.e. to not
pass the "-l" flag, "Per-Transaction Logging"). Just remove it and
pgbench-tools rolls with it. It may well be that the overhead added is
completely insignificant, but for something like this, where the
latency information is unlikely to add any value, I prefer to not take
the chance. This is a fairly minor point, however, especially since
these are only 60 second runs where you're unlikely to accumulate
enough transaction latency information to notice any effect.
--
Peter Geoghegan
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2014-02-04 21:47:00 | Re: Performance Improvement by reducing WAL for Update Operation |
Previous Message | Alexander Korotkov | 2014-02-04 21:23:19 | Re: GIN improvements part2: fast scan |