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

Re: Review: Revise parallel pg_restore's scheduling heuristic

From: "Kevin Grittner" <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
To: "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, "Robert Haas" <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Review: Revise parallel pg_restore's scheduling heuristic
Date: 2009-07-27 15:54:23
Message-ID: (view raw or whole thread)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> wrote:
> To performance test this properly you might need to devise a test
> that will use a sufficiently different order of queueing items to
> show the difference.
It would appear that I need help with devising a proper test.  So far,
all tests have shown no difference in performance based on the patch;
I get almost twice the speed as a single job running in one database
transaction either way.  Can someone explain what I should try to set
up to get a "best case" and a "worst case" for the patch?  Our
production databases don't expose any difference, but I'm willing to
try to use them to "seed" an artificial case which will.

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Andrew DunstanDate: 2009-07-27 16:02:32
Subject: Re: [RFC] new digest datatypes, or generic fixed-len hex types?
Previous:From: Robert HaasDate: 2009-07-27 15:41:05
Subject: Re: When is a record NULL?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2015 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group