| From: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila(at)huawei(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "'Merlin Moncure'" <mmoncure(at)gmail(dot)com>, "'Hari Babu'" <haribabu(dot)kommi(at)huawei(dot)com>, "'Greg Smith'" <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, "'Atri Sharma'" <atri(dot)jiit(at)gmail(dot)com>, "'PostgreSQL-development'" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: WIP patch for hint bit i/o mitigation |
| Date: | 2013-01-18 11:34:55 |
| Message-ID: | 50F9335F.7040003@2ndQuadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 12/14/2012 09:57 PM, Amit Kapila wrote:
>>
>> I need to validate the vacuum results. It's possible that this is
>> solvable by tweaking xmin check inside vacuum. Assuming that's fixed,
>> the question stands: do the results justify the change? I'd argue
>> 'maybe'
> We can try with change (assuming change is small) and see if the performance
> gain is good, then discuss whether it really justifies.
> I think the main reason for Vacuum performance hit is that in the test pages
> are getting dirty only due to setting of hint bit
> by Vacuum.
>
>> -- I'd like to see the bulk insert performance hit reduced if
>> possible.
> I think if we can improve performance for bulk-insert case, then this patch
> has much more value.
Has there been any movement in this - more benchmarks and data showing
that it really does improve performance, or that it really isn't helpful?
--
Craig Ringer http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Amit Kapila | 2013-01-18 11:41:36 | Re: Passing connection string to pg_basebackup |
| Previous Message | Craig Ringer | 2013-01-18 11:29:32 | Re: Patch for removng unused targets |