| From: | Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Geoghegan <peter(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PG Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Why do we still have commit_delay and commit_siblings? |
| Date: | 2012-05-14 12:42:37 |
| Message-ID: | CAMkU=1xL3xrP6YgOF9XmTE+D5AnQ0TEckTYdXwOXeOxTjHus9Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 11:07 PM, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Keeping a parameter without any clue as to whether it has benefit is
> just wasting people's time.
>
> We don't ADD parameters based on supposition, why should we avoid
> removing parameters that have no measured benefit?
Using pgbench -T30 -c 2 -j 2 on a 2 core laptop system, with a scale
that fits in shared_buffers:
--commit-delay=2000 --commit-siblings=0
tps = 162.924783 (excluding connections establishing)
--commit-delay=0 --commit-siblings=0
tps = 89.237578 (excluding connections establishing)
Cheers,
Jeff
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2012-05-14 14:09:34 | Re: Why do we still have commit_delay and commit_siblings? |
| Previous Message | Jeff Janes | 2012-05-14 12:22:12 | Re: Why do we still have commit_delay and commit_siblings? |