Re: Log levels for checkpoint/bgwriter monitoring

From: Jim Nasby <decibel(at)decibel(dot)org>
To: Greg Smith <gsmith(at)gregsmith(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Log levels for checkpoint/bgwriter monitoring
Date: 2007-03-09 21:28:48
Message-ID: 7A38AFE6-D2FF-4951-BBF1-D12CFF59513E@decibel.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Mar 8, 2007, at 11:51 PM, Greg Smith wrote:
> almost everything that's dirty is also pinned during pgbench, and
> the LRU is lucky to find anything it can write as a result

I'm wondering if pg_bench is a good test of this stuff. ISTM it's
unrealistically write-heavy, which is going to tend to not only put a
lot of dirty buffers into the pool, but also keep them pinned enough
that you can't write them.

Perhaps you should either modify pg_bench to do a lot more selects
out of the various tables or look towards a different benchmark.
--
Jim Nasby jim(at)nasby(dot)net
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jim Nasby 2007-03-09 21:34:49 Re: Log levels for checkpoint/bgwriter monitoring
Previous Message Lukas Kahwe Smith 2007-03-09 20:50:18 Re: who gets paid for this