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

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
Cc: Postgres Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Checkpoint cost, looks like it is WAL/CRC
Date: 2005-06-30 20:22:24
Message-ID: 21290.1120162944@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:
> What I'm confused about is that this shouldn't be anything new for 8.1. Yet
> 8.1 has *worse* performance on the STP machines than 8.0 does, and it's
> pretty much entirely due to this check.

That's simply not believable --- better recheck your analysis. If 8.1
is worse it's not because of page-dumping, because we are more efficient
on that than before not less so. Perhaps there's another issue?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2005-06-30 20:31:25 Re: Backend working directories and absolute file paths
Previous Message Larry Rosenman 2005-06-30 19:42:25 REL7_4_STABLE: Check failure