Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: CommitDelay performance improvement

From: Hiroshi Inoue <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Philip Warner <pjw(at)rhyme(dot)com(dot)au>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: CommitDelay performance improvement
Date: 2001-02-26 00:17:03
Message-ID: 3A99A07F.4838662C@tpf.co.jp (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Tom Lane wrote:
> 
> Philip Warner <pjw(at)rhyme(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
> > At 00:42 25/02/01 -0800, Nathan Myers wrote:
> >> The only really bad performers were (0), (10k,1), (100k,20).  The best
> >> were (30k,1) and (30k,10), although (30k,5) also did well except at 40.
> >> Why would 30k be a magic delay, regardless of siblings?  What happened
> >> at 40?
> 
> > I had assumed that 40 was one of the glitches - it would be good if Tom (or
> > someone else) could rerun the suite, to see if we see the same dip.
> 
> Yes, I assumed the same.  I posted the script; could someone else make
> the same run?  We really need more than one test case ;-)
> 

I could find the sciript but seem to have missed your change
about commit_siblings. Where could I get it ?

Regards,
Hiroshi Inoue

In response to

Responses

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Justin CliftDate: 2001-02-26 00:18:37
Subject: Re: beta5 packages ...
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2001-02-25 21:58:04
Subject: Re: Re: offset and limit in update and subselect

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group