Re: XLogInsert

2009/12/15 Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>

> Jaime Casanova wrote:
>
>> So in this extreme case avg tps is just 6 transactions better
>>
>>
> Great job trying to find the spot where the code worked better. I'm not so
> sure I trust pgbench results where the TPS was so low though. Which leads
> us right back to exactly how Jeff measured his original results.
>
> As I said already, I think we need more insight into Jeff's performance
> report, a way to replicate that test, to look a bit at the latency as
> reported by the updated LWLock patch that Pierre submitted. Tweaking your
> test to give more useful results is a nice second opinion on top of that.
> But we're out of time for now, so this patch is getting returned with
> feedback. I encourage Jeff to resubmit the same patch or a better one with
> a little more data on performance measurements to our final 8.5 CommitFest
> in hopes we can confirm this an improvement worth committing.
>
>
>
Last week I worked on a FUSE based filesystem, which I call BlackholeFS. Its
similar to /dev/null, but for directories. Basically it simply returns
success for all the writes, but doesn't do any writes on the files under it.

Would moving the pg_xlog/ (and possibly table data too) to such a filesystem
exercise this patch better?

Best regards,
--
Lets call it Postgres

EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com

gurjeet[(dot)singh](at)EnterpriseDB(dot)com

singh(dot)gurjeet(at){ gmail | hotmail | indiatimes | yahoo }.com
Twitter: singh_gurjeet
Skype: singh_gurjeet

Mail sent from my BlackLaptop device