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: 4A6D875F0200002500028D83@gw.wicourts.gov (view raw or flat)
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.
 
-Kevin

In response to

Responses

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 © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group