From: | Greg Smith <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Log levels for checkpoint/bgwriter monitoring |
Date: | 2007-03-10 00:33:38 |
Message-ID: | Pine.GSO.4.64.0703091923300.9297@westnet.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, 9 Mar 2007, Jim Nasby wrote:
> I'm wondering if pg_bench is a good test of this stuff. ISTM it's
> unrealistically write-heavy, which is going to tend to not only put a
> lot of dirty buffers into the pool, but also keep them pinned enough
> that you can't write them.
Whether it's "unrealistically" write-heavy kind of depends on what your
real app is. The standard pgbench is a bit weird because it does so many
updates to tiny tables, which adds a level of locking contention that
doesn't really reflect many real-world situations. But the no-branch mode
(update/select to accounts, insert into history) isn't too dissimilar from
some insert-heavy logging applications I've seen.
The main reason I brought this all up was because Itagaki seemed to be
using pgbench for some of his performance tests. I just wanted to point
out that the LRU background writer specifically tends to be very
underutilized when using pgbench.
--
* Greg Smith gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore, MD
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Gregory Stark | 2007-03-10 00:43:15 | Re: Bug in VACUUM FULL ? |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2007-03-10 00:18:16 | Re: autovacuum next steps, take 3 |