| From: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Greg Smith <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Bgwriter strategies |
| Date: | 2007-07-06 10:30:39 |
| Message-ID: | 468E19CF.8040004@enterprisedb.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Greg Smith wrote:
> As you can see, I achieved the goal of almost never having a backend
> write its own buffer, so yeah for that. That's the only good thing I
> can say about it though. The TPS results take a moderate dive, and
> there's about 10% more buffer allocations. The big and obvious issues
> is that I'm writing almost 75% more buffers this way--way worse even
> than the 10% extra overhead Heikki was seeing. But since I've going out
> of my way to find a worse-case for this code, I consider mission
> accomplished there.
There's something wrong with that. The number of buffer allocations
shouldn't depend on the bgwriter strategy at all.
--
Heikki Linnakangas
EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Greg Smith | 2007-07-06 10:47:54 | Re: Bgwriter strategies |
| Previous Message | Simon Riggs | 2007-07-06 10:23:43 | Re: tsearch2: language or encoding |