Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: CommitDelay performance improvement

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: CommitDelay performance improvement
Date: 2001-02-24 06:07:17
Message-ID: 11005.982994837@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
ncm(at)zembu(dot)com (Nathan Myers) writes:
> I see, I had it backwards: N=0 corresponds to "always delay", and 
> N=infinity (~0) is "never delay", or what you call zero delay.  N=1 is 
> not interesting.  N=M/2 or N=sqrt(M) or N=log(M) might be interesting, 
> where M is the number of backends, or the number of backends with begun 
> transactions, or something.  N=10 would be conservative (and maybe 
> pointless) just because it would hardly ever trigger a delay.

Why is N=1 not interesting?  That requires at least one other backend
to be in a transaction before you'll delay.  That would seem to be
the minimum useful value --- N=0 (always delay) seems clearly to be
too stupid to be useful.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2001-02-24 06:36:00
Subject: Re: CommitDelay performance improvement
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2001-02-24 05:22:25
Subject: Re: CommitDelay performance improvement

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group