From: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> |
---|---|
To: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: checkpointer continuous flushing |
Date: | 2016-01-16 09:01:25 |
Message-ID: | alpine.DEB.2.10.1601160945320.18181@sto |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hello Andres,
> I measured it in a different number of cases, both on SSDs and spinning
> rust. I just reproduced it with:
>
> postgres-ckpt14 \
> -D /srv/temp/pgdev-dev-800/ \
> -c maintenance_work_mem=2GB \
> -c fsync=on \
> -c synchronous_commit=off \
> -c shared_buffers=2GB \
> -c wal_level=hot_standby \
> -c max_wal_senders=10 \
> -c max_wal_size=100GB \
> -c checkpoint_timeout=30s
>
> Using a fresh cluster each time (copied from a "template" to save time)
> and using
> pgbench -M prepared -c 16 -j 16 -T 300 -P 1
I'm running some tests similar to those above...
Do you do some warmup when testing? I guess the answer is "no".
I understand that you have 8 cores/16 threads on your host?
Loading scale 800 data for 300 seconds tests takes much more than 300
seconds (init takes ~360 seconds, vacuum & index are slow). With 30
seconds checkpoint cycles and without any warmup, I feel that these tests
are really on the very short (too short) side, so I'm not sure how much I
can trust such results as significant. The data I reported were with more
real life like parameters.
Anyway, I'll have some results to show with a setting more or less similar
to yours.
--
Fabien.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2016-01-16 09:57:45 | Re: pgindent-polluted commits |
Previous Message | Fabien COELHO | 2016-01-16 08:06:44 | Re: checkpointer continuous flushing |