| From: | paolo romano <paolo(dot)romano(at)yahoo(dot)it> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> |
| Cc: | paolo romano <paolo(dot)romano(at)yahoo(dot)it>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: MultiXacts & WAL |
| Date: | 2006-06-17 17:43:34 |
| Message-ID: | 20060617174334.15471.qmail@web27807.mail.ukl.yahoo.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Yeah, it's difficult to believe that multixact stuff could form a
noticeable fraction of the total WAL load, except perhaps under really
pathological circumstances, because the code just isn't supposed to be
exercised often. So I don't think this is worth pursuing. Paolo's free
to try to prove the opposite of course ... but I'd want to see numbers
not speculation.
regards, tom lane
Tom is right, mine are indeed just plain speculations, motivated by my original doubt concerning whether there were hidden reasons for requiring multixacts recoverability.
I don't know if I'll find the time to do some performance tests, at least in the short term, but I've enjoyed to exchange my views with you all, so thanks a lot for your feedback!
Just a curiosity, what kind of benchmarks would you use to evaluate this effect? I am quite familiar with TPC-C and TPC-W, but i am a newbie of postgresql community so i was wondering if you were using any reference benchmark....
Chiacchiera con i tuoi amici in tempo reale!
http://it.yahoo.com/mail_it/foot/*http://it.messenger.yahoo.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-06-17 18:56:47 | oprofile results for stats collector test |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2006-06-17 17:43:06 | Re: Test request for Stats collector performance improvement |