Re: Review: Revise parallel pg_restore's scheduling heuristic

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Kevin Grittner <Kevin(dot)Grittner(at)wicourts(dot)gov>
Cc: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Review: Revise parallel pg_restore's scheduling heuristic
Date: 2009-07-27 16:05:07
Message-ID: 4A6DD033.8060409@dunslane.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Kevin Grittner wrote:
> 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.
>
>

Does your test case have lots of foreign keys?

cheers

andrew

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kevin Grittner 2009-07-27 16:14:36 Re: Review: Revise parallel pg_restore's scheduling heuristic
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2009-07-27 16:02:32 Re: [RFC] new digest datatypes, or generic fixed-len hex types?