| From: | "Gregory Maxwell" <gmaxwell(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Gregory Stark" <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "Greg Smith" <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Load Distributed Checkpoints test results |
| Date: | 2007-06-15 20:28:34 |
| Message-ID: | e692861c0706151328g1b7a097j4817042760e9dcc0@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 6/15/07, Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> wrote:
> While in theory spreading out the writes could have a detrimental effect I
> think we should wait until we see actual numbers. I have a pretty strong
> suspicion that the effect would be pretty minimal. We're still doing the same
> amount of i/o total, just with a slightly less chance for the elevator
> algorithm to optimize the pattern.
..and the sort patching suggests that the OS's elevator isn't doing a
great job for large flushes in any case. I wouldn't be shocked to see
load distributed checkpoints cause an unconditional improvement since
they may do better at avoiding the huge burst behavior that is
overrunning the OS elevator in any case.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2007-06-15 20:38:03 | Re: Rethinking user-defined-typmod before it's too late |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2007-06-15 20:22:46 | Re: Load Distributed Checkpoints, revised patch |