| From: | "Curtis Faith" <curtis(at)galtair(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Hannu Krosing" <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee> |
| Cc: | "Pgsql-Hackers" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Analysis of ganged WAL writes |
| Date: | 2002-10-08 14:00:06 |
| Message-ID: | DMEEJMCDOJAKPPFACMPMMEGBCEAA.curtis@galtair.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> You example of >1 trx/proc/rev will wok _only_ if no more and no less
> than 1/4 of platter is filled by _other_ log writers.
Not really, if 1/2 the platter has been filled we'll still get in one more
commit in for a given rotation. If more than a rotation's worth of writing
has occurred that means we are bumping into the limit of disk I/O and that
it the limit that we can't do anything about without doing interleaved log
files.
> > The case of bulk inserts is one where I would expect that for
> simple tables
> > we should be able to peg the disks given today's hardware and enough
> > inserting processes.
>
> bulk inserts should probably be chunked at higher level by inserting
> several records inside a single transaction.
Agreed, that's much more efficient. There are plenty of situations where
the inserts and updates are ongoing rather than initial, Shridhar's
real-world test or TPC benchmarks, for example.
- Curtis
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Justin Clift | 2002-10-08 14:04:40 | Re: Hot Backup |
| Previous Message | Curtis Faith | 2002-10-08 13:53:16 | Re: Dirty Buffer Writing [was Proposed LogWriter Scheme] |