| From: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: checkpointer continuous flushing |
| Date: | 2015-09-10 06:34:14 |
| Message-ID: | alpine.DEB.2.10.1509100824360.25031@sto |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hello Amit,
>> - T1 flush=off 27480 -> 27482 : +0.0%
>> - T1 flush=on 25214 -> 26819 : +6.3%
>> - T2 flush=off 5050 -> 6194 : +22.6%
>> - T2 flush=on 2771 -> 6110 : +120.4%
>
> There is a clear win only in cases when sort is used with flush, apart
> from that using sort alone doesn't have any clear advantage.
Indeed, I agree that the improvement is much smaller without flushing,
although it is there somehow (+0.0 & +22.6 => +11.3% on average).
Well, at least we may agree that it is "somehow significantly better" ?:-)
--
Fabien.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2015-09-10 06:46:25 | Re: pageinspect patch, for showing tuple data |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2015-09-10 05:37:21 | Small typo in timeline.h regarding the meaning of infinity for timeline history entry |