Re: data on devel code perf dip

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, maryedie(at)osdl(dot)org, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Mark Wong <markw(at)osdl(dot)org>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
Subject: Re: data on devel code perf dip
Date: 2005-08-12 01:44:53
Message-ID: 200508120144.j7C1irp26488@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

Tom Lane wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org> writes:
> > In light of this, may I ask whether it makes sense to compare the
> > performance of two runs with similar shared_buffer settings? With
> > O_DIRECT, I understand from this manpage that the OS is going to do
> > little or no page caching, so shared_buffers should be increased to
> > account for this fact.
>
> > Am I missing something?
>
> O_DIRECT is only being used for WAL page writes (or I sure hope so
> anyway), so shared_buffers should be irrelevant.

Uh, O_DIRECT really just enables when open_sync is used, and I assume
that is not used for writing dirty buffers during a checkpoint.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message ITAGAKI Takahiro 2005-08-12 01:47:45 Why do index access methods use LP_DELETE?
Previous Message Andrew - Supernews 2005-08-12 01:44:18 Re: data on devel code perf dip

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2005-08-12 02:01:21 Re: data on devel code perf dip
Previous Message Andrew - Supernews 2005-08-12 01:44:18 Re: data on devel code perf dip