Re: [RFC] Change the default of update_process_title to off

From: "Tsunakawa, Takayuki" <tsunakawa(dot)takay(at)jp(dot)fujitsu(dot)com>
To: 'Peter Geoghegan' <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Change the default of update_process_title to off
Date: 2016-08-24 02:35:40
Message-ID: 0A3221C70F24FB45833433255569204D1F5DFDD5@G01JPEXMBYT05
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

From: Peter Geoghegan [mailto:pg(at)heroku(dot)com]
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 1:44 PM, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> wrote:
> >> [Windows]
> >> #clients on off
> >> 12 29793 38169
> >> 24 31587 87237
> >> 48 32588 83335
> >> 96 34261 67668
> >
> > This ranges from a 28% to a 97% speed improvement on Windows! Those
> > are not typos! This is a game-changer for use of Postgres on Windows
> > for certain workloads!
>
> While I don't care all that much about performance on windows, it is a little
> sad that it took this long to fix something so simple. Consider this exchange,
> as a further example of our lack of concern here:
>
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/30619.1428157653@sss.pgh.pa.us

Probably, the useful Windows Performance Toolkit, which is a counterpart of perf on Linux, was not available before. Maybe we can dig deeper into performance problems with it now.

As a similar topic, I wonder whether the following still holds true, after many improvements on shared buffer lock contention.

https://www.postgresql.org/docs/devel/static/runtime-config-resource.html

"The useful range for shared_buffers on Windows systems is generally from 64MB to 512MB."

Regards
Takayuki Tsunakawa

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jeff Janes 2016-08-24 02:54:39 recent compiler warnings
Previous Message Tom Lane 2016-08-24 01:43:43 Re: dump/restore doesn't preserve row ordering?