| From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Gregory Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, ITAGAKI Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Subject: | Re: Recalculating OldestXmin in a long-running vacuum |
| Date: | 2007-03-13 12:27:41 |
| Message-ID: | 20070313122741.GA4490@alvh.no-ip.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-patches |
Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> I ran two 24h test runs with DBT-2, one with the patch and one without.
> To get comparable, predictable results, I turned autovacuum off and run
> a manual vacuum in a loop on the stock-table alone.
>
> As expected, the steady-state of the stock table is smaller with the
> patch. But only by ~2%, that's slightly less than I expected.
>
> But what surprises me is that response times went up a with the patch. I
> don't know why.
Maybe because of increased contention of ProcArrayLock? (I assume you
are using that, althought I haven't seen the patch)
--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2007-03-13 12:36:58 | Re: Recalculating OldestXmin in a long-running vacuum |
| Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2007-03-13 11:15:23 | Re: Recalculating OldestXmin in a long-running vacuum |