Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC
Date: 2005-07-22 20:19:03
Message-ID: 16217.1122063543@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
> Looks like the CRC calculation work isn't the issue. I did test runs of
> no-CRC vs. regular DBT2 with different checkpoint timeouts, and didn't
> discern any statistical difference. See attached spreadsheet chart (the
> two different runs are on two different machines).

Um, where are the test runs underlying this spreadsheet? I don't have a
whole lot of confidence in looking at full-run average TPM numbers to
discern whether transient dropoffs in TPM are significant or not.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Josh Berkus 2005-07-22 20:23:38 Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC
Previous Message Greg Stark 2005-07-22 20:15:45 Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC